Banerjee, represented by a battery of lawyers — Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Siddharth Luthra and Menaka Guruswamy — argued that remedies provided for under Article 32 are available only to individual citizens and that the ED should pursue its case under provisions of the BNS. They said it was for the Centre to move the court under Article 131, which deals with disputes between the Centre and state(s).However, the bench, which termed her conduct “extraordinary and unprecedented”, did not agree. “How can a situation, where a CM walks in in the midst of an investigation, be termed as a dispute between the state and the central govt to invoke Article 131,” asked Justices Mishra and Anjaria.The court said legal issues arising out of the present controversy were not contemplated and conceived by the Constitution makers, making it an unprecedented situation.Guruswamy, besides contending that Article 32 is available only to an individual and not to a govt department, argued that the case involved a substantial question of law and it should be adjudicated by a 5-judge constitution bench.The bench was hearing a plea filed by the ED and its officials seeking a CBI probe against the CM and others for preventing them from discharging their duty when they had raided the premises of I-PAC, which is the political consultant of Trinamool. Go to Source
