West Bengal vs. ED: Supreme Court Confronts Constitution's Limits

The West Bengal government seeks a five-judge Constitution Bench in the Supreme Court for the I-PAC raids case, raising substantial constitutional interpretation questions. They challenge the Enforcement Directorate's use of Article 32, arguing it undermines federal structure and stresses on constitutional adjudication for Centre-State disputes.

The West Bengal government on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to refer the contentious I-PAC raids case to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The core argument hinges on substantial constitutional interpretation concerning Centre-State dynamics and the legitimate use of Article 32, which West Bengal claims disrupts federal integrity.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the State, emphasized the gravity of the case, asserting that it necessitates adjudication by a larger bench due to its implications on the constitutional framework. West Bengal argues that allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to invoke Article 32 against a state circumvents the designed constitutional order.

Emphasizing the principles of federalism embedded in the Constitution, Divan argued that disputes like this warrant referral to a Constitution Bench, as specified in Article 145. The case has gained additional complexity with allied objections, including the State's critique of the ED's procedural approach and forum choices.

(With inputs from agencies.)