The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the Calcutta High Court order allowing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to question Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee in connection with the West Bengal teachers' recruitment scam. A bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and P S Narasimha, however, stayed part of the May 18 order by which the High Court imposed Rs 25 lakh fine on Banerjee for wasting the court’s time. “I think the order is very balanced and fair,” Justice Narasimha told senior advocate A M Singhvi, who appeared for Banerjee. The single judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha had on May 18 dismissed Banerjee’s plea that sought recall of the order of another single judge permitting the CBI and ED to question him in the case. The HC also imposed a cost of Rs 25 lakh on him for wasting its time. The case was earlier heard by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and he had allowed the ED and CBI inquiry. Banerjee appealed to the SC against this and referred to certain alleged remarks made by the judge against him in an interview to a TV news channel following which the SC sought a report from the HC. Registrar General. After perusing the report, the SC on April 24 directed that the case be reassigned to another judge. Following this, the matter was assigned to Justice Amrita Sinha. Appearing for Banerjee on Friday, Singhvi told the bench that the SC had directed a de-novo hearing but this had not happened. Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju said “ultimately the order which was supposed to be recalled only said investigate if you want. Independently of that order, ED has power to investigate and powers of investigating officers are unfettered except where there is malafide etc. That power of investigation cannot be usurped.” Singhvi argued that the ED said what he is investigating is under a direct court order. The bench responded that it will post this matter for hearing after vacation and both sides can raise objections. “In the meanwhile, so far as the part relating to imposition of cost is concerned, that we will stay,” the bench added.
