Do ED officers cease to be Citizens?: SC examines maintainability of ED’s plea in I-PAC Raid case

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court continued hearing the high-stakes challenge arising out of the I-PAC raid controversy, where the Enforcement Directorate and its officers have approached the Court alleging obstruction by West Bengal authorities. The proceedings have now sharpened focus on a crucial constitutional question, whether central agency officers can invoke Article 32 of the Constitution when acting in their official capacity, a determination that could redefine the scope of fundamental rights enforcement actions.

The case stemmed from a search operation conducted at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC, where ED officials claim they were obstructed by the State machinery, including police authorities. Contesting the maintainability of the petition, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, argued that the ED cannot invoke Article 32 of the Constitution as neither the agency nor its officers have demonstrated any violation of fundamental rights. He further contended that officials discharging statutory duties do not possess enforceable fundamental rights in that context, and allowing such petitions could disrupt the federal balance by enabling central agencies to directly challenge State actions before the Supreme Court. The State also questioned the procedural route adopted by the ED, pointing out the absence of prior recourse to ordinary remedies.

The Bench, however, indicated that the issue may not be as straightforward, raising a key constitutional query, “Merely because they are officers of the ED, do they cease to become citizens of India?” The Court noted that the matter involves distinct dimensions, alleged obstruction on one hand and the legality of invoking Article 32 of the Constitution on the other, both requiring careful consideration. Without deciding the issue at this stage, the Court continued hearing the matter and signalled that the question of maintainability, including possible reference to a larger Bench, remains open.

The case is now slated for further hearing in April.