On the eve of the first phase of polling in West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday came in for scathing criticism from the Supreme Court which made strong remarks against her for alleged interference in the Enforcement Directorate’s raids against political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata in January this year.While hearing petitions filed by the ED and its officers, a Bench of Justice PK Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria said that constitutional stalwarts such as BR Ambedkar would not have conceived of such a situation created by her acts that put the democracy in peril.“This is not a dispute between the State and the Union. A Chief Minister of any State cannot walk in the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say… don’t convert this into a dispute between the State and the Union. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister putting the whole democracy in jeopardy,” the Bench said.The top court’s comments came after senior counsel Menaka Guruswamy questioned the maintainability of the ED’s petitions and sought to emphasise that a petition under Article 32 couldn’t have been filed.As senior lawyer Siddharth Luthra said the ED and its officers should have gone to a magistrate, the Bench said it can’t ignore the ground situation in West Bengal.Referring to the case where several judicial officers were held hostage, the Bench said, “And you say the petitioner should have gone to a magistrate under Section 200! We cannot shut our eyes to the reality of what’s happening (in West Bengal). We cannot lose sight of the practical situation which is present in the state.“Don’t compel us to make observations. This is not a litigation between Ram vs Shyam. This is an extraordinary situation where the contours are totally different. The court has to take decisions keeping in view socio-political realities. It’s an ever-evolving process,” the Bench noted.The ED had on January 8 conducted raids at the premises of I-PAC and at the residence of its director Pratik Jain in Kolkata as part of a money-laundering probe into an alleged multi-crore coal pilferage case. CM Banerjee and others allegedly caused obstructions during the raids.The Supreme Court had on January 15 issued notice to the West Bengal Government, Chief Minister Banerjee, tate’s DGP Rajeev Kumar and others on the Enforcement Directorate’s petition seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing the agency’s raid at the I-PAC office and premises of its director Pratik Jain in Kolkata on January 8.As West Bengal questioned the maintainability of the ED’s petition under Article 32 of the Constitution over alleged obstruction by Chief Minister Banerjee during its raid at political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata, the top court had on March 24 wondered if the ED officials could go to the state government in such a situation.“The CM barges into an ED investigation, and your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government, which is headed by the CM, and inform them about it and seek a remedy?” the Bench had asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal who represented the West Bengal Government.The Bench, which had on March 18 said that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee interrupting the probe agency’s January 8 raid at the I-PAC office in Kolkata was not a “happy situation”, made these comments on Tuesday after Sibal said that if the ED officials had been any obstructed, the state police could investigate the matter.Sibal said the court should not assume that the Chief Minister has committed any offence.Contending that investigative agencies can’t claim a fundamental right to investigate, Sibal said allowing the ED to invoke writ jurisdiction under either Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution will open a “Pandora’s box”.However, the Bench posed a counter-question to Sibal. “Just because they are officers of the ED, they cannot approach (SC) under Article 32? Suppose, there is no petition of the ED and there is only one petition filed by officers of the ED… What way will you deal with that? Merely because at that point of time they are officers of the ED do they cease to become citizens of India?” the Bench asked.“Please concentrate on the fundamental right of officers of the ED against whom the offence has been committed. Otherwise, you will miss the point. You can’t forget the second petition which is preferred by individual officers who are the victims of the offence. You will be in difficulty; I am telling you. Don’t just say ED, ED, ED,” Justice Mishra told Sibal and posted the matter for further hearing in April.