ED presses for CBI probe in Bengal I-PAC raid case.

MP, 24 April 2026, Kolkata: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday heard extensive arguments from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) pressing for a CBI probe into the alleged obstruction of its January 8 search at I-PAC’s Kolkata office, with the Centre contending that ED officers’ fundamental rights were violated and that a fair investigation is impossible under the West Bengal police.

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the case reflects a “complete breakdown of rule of law”, bringing it within Article 14 and justifying invocation of Article 32.

He contended that ED officers, though acting in official capacity, remain citizens entitled to constitutional protection.

“It is their right to be proceeded with in accordance with law,” he submitted, adding that obstruction of search proceedings, seizure of collected material, and registration of FIRs against officers amounted to a direct infringement of their fundamental rights.

Mehta told the Bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and N.V. Anjaria that the ED had approached the Calcutta High Court, which recorded that circumstances were not conducive for hearing the matter, necessitating recourse to the apex court.

He argued that approaching the state police was not a viable remedy.

“I cannot seek investigation from the very police that have registered cases against me,” he said, pointing to multiple FIRs and alleging bias.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted that ED officers were “victims” of offences including wrongful restraint and unlawful seizure of evidence, and were entitled to a fair investigation.

He cited inconsistencies in police records, noting that officials initially acknowledged the ED’s presence but later described them as “unknown persons” in FIRs, indicating a tainted process.

The Centre also relied on past instances, including a 2019 confrontation involving central agencies, to argue a pattern of interference warranting an independent probe.

The Bench, however, questioned the maintainability of the plea under Article 32, cautioning against expanding its scope to routine investigatory disputes. The hearing will continue.