ED argues Bengal writ petition is maintainable; cites other states' filings in Supreme Court

Mehta argued for an independent neutral agency under court supervision to conduct investigations with proper documentation, contrasting central agency involvement with perceived political interference, including references to I-Pac materials.

With Bengal suggesting a statutory remedy via FIR instead of Article 32, Mehta asked how a case FIR could be filed before the state police seeking a probe against the CM, DGP, a police commissioner and a DCP.

The bench observed an inherent danger that such petitions, if entertained, could lead to a floodgate of litigation with states repeatedly filing them.

Mehta justified the petition filed by ED officers, stating they do not forgo their fundamental rights after donning the uniform and cannot be prevented from filing a petition if they are falsely implicated; their identity as individuals and officers is inseparable.

Mehta argued that the rule of law is part of fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality before law) and a writ petition can be filed in case of breakdown of the rule of law, as alleged in Bengal where ED was allegedly obstructed from carrying out its probe.

During a Supreme Court hearing before Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that governments of Tamil Nadu, Odisha and Bengal had filed writ petitions and that the court had entertained them, countering Mamata Banerjee's plea that only individuals can file such petitions.

ED has alleged that Mamata Banerjee used the state machinery to obstruct its January 8 probe at political consultancy firm I-Pac's office in Kolkata in connection with the coal smuggling case.