Relevance for UPSC: GS Paper II (Federalism, Governance, Constitution); GS Paper IV (Ethics in Public Administration)
Source: The  Hindu 

Context

Recent Enforcement Directorate raids in West Bengal, followed by public protests led by the Chief Minister, have triggered a political and constitutional confrontation between the Union and the State. The episode reflects a deepening trust deficit in Centre–State relations, especially concerning the role of central investigative agencies.

Institutional and Legal Framework

The Enforcement Directorate functions under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, and derives its powers primarily from the:

• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
• Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999

It has nationwide jurisdiction, and its operations do not require State consent.

Key statutory powers include search, seizure, arrest, and a reversed burden of proof. While the Supreme Court has upheld these powers, it has repeatedly stressed the need for procedural fairness and restraint.

Constitutional Provisions in Tension

• Article 256 obliges States to comply with Union laws.
• Article 355 places a duty on the Union to ensure constitutional governance in States.
• Article 162 vests executive power in States over matters in the State List, including policing.

This overlap creates a structural tension where Union investigative authority intersects with State administrative control, often without robust coordination mechanisms.

Core Federal and Governance Issues

1. Cooperative vs Coercive Federalism

Frequent interventions by central agencies in Opposition-ruled States have reinforced perceptions of coercive federalism, contrary to the cooperative spirit envisaged in:

• S.R. Bommai judgment
• Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations

2. Institutional Neutrality and Rule of Law

• Allegations of selective targeting weaken public confidence in investigative agencies.
• Conversely, political or administrative obstruction of lawful investigations undermines the rule of law.

Both trends erode institutional credibility.

Ethical and Constitutional Propriety

The public intervention of a sitting Chief Minister, even if claimed in a party capacity, raises concerns of role confusion between:

• Constitutional executive authority
• Political leadership

This conflicts with the principle of constitutional morality, which demands restraint, institutional respect, and separation of political mobilisation from executive power.

Judicial and Systemic Impact

• Rising judicialisation of federal disputes, with courts acting as arbiters of Centre–State conflict.
• Increased burden on judiciary to preserve federal balance, rather than political resolution through dialogue.

Implications for Indian Federalism

Short-Term

• Administrative stand-offs
• Governance disruption
• Escalation of political confrontation

Long-Term

• Normalisation of agency–State conflict
• Weakening of both anti-corruption enforcement and federal trust architecture

Summary

The West Bengal episode underscores the fragile balance between Union investigative powers and State political autonomy, revealing structural weaknesses in cooperative federalism.

One-line Wrap: Federal harmony depends not just on power-sharing, but on institutional restraint.

Q. Critically examine how the functioning of central investigative agencies impacts India’s federal structure.