New Delhi, March 25 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasised that it is unconcerned with the timing of the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petitions seeking a CBI probe against West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee over alleged obstruction of a money laundering investigation, asserting that the court neither seeks to influence electoral outcomes nor permit any disruption of the rule of law. West Bengal assembly elections are scheduled for April 23 and April 29, covering 294 seats in two phases, with results on May 4. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria underscored that its focus remained firmly on upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights, irrespective of the political context or proximity to elections. "We did not hear this matter because election is around. The court does not want a political party to win an election. We do not want to be a party to a crime also. There is no timing for a decision," observed the bench, rejecting suggestions that the proceedings were politically timed. The court was hearing ED's plea accusing Banerjee and senior state officials of interfering with its search operations at political consultancy firm I-PAC's Kolkata office earlier this year. The agency has also sought transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that its officers were obstructed and threatened during the operation. On Tuesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, led the challenge to the maintainability of the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. He argued that the ED, being a directorate under the Union government, cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for enforcement of fundamental rights, and that its officers, acting in their official capacity, do not possess a "fundamental right to investigate". "The petition must disclose which fundamental right of the petitioner is violated. A statutory power to investigate is not a fundamental right," contended Sibal, adding that any obstruction to public servants is addressable under criminal law and does not warrant a constitutional remedy. He added that permitting such petitions would open the floodgates, allowing government departments to routinely invoke Article 32 in matters better addressed through statutory mechanisms, thereby unsettling the federal balance. The bench, however, repeatedly tested this argument, indicating that the issue may not be confined to statutory violations alone. It pointed out that the right to rule of law, recognised as part of the Constitution's basic structure, could give rise to enforceable claims even in situations not strictly "person-centric". "Is it not a fundamental right to have a rule of law?" asked the court, while also highlighting that individual ED officers, as citizens, may independently assert violation of their rights if they are victims of alleged offences during the discharge of duties. With arguments on maintainability and constitutional questions still underway, the hearing remained inconclusive on Tuesday. The matter is now expected to continue next month....