The Supreme Court on Thursday stepped into the escalating confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal executive, issuing a formal notice to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other state officials. The notice follows serious allegations by the federal agency that the Chief Minister personally interfered in raids conducted at I-PAC, a political consultancy firm linked to the Trinamool Congress.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi sought a response from the Chief Minister within two weeks and listed the matter for the next hearing on February 3, 2026.
In a significant interim relief for the federal agency, the apex court restrained the West Bengal Police from proceeding with any investigation into the First Information Report (FIR) registered against ED officials in connection with the incident. Additionally, the bench directed the state government to strictly preserve all CCTV footage from the I-PAC office and cameras in the surrounding areas to prevent any tampering with evidence.
ED Allegations: “Theft” and “Shocking Pattern”
The controversy stems from an ED raid conducted on January 8 at the I-PAC office and the premises of its chief, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata’s Salt Lake area.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, painted a dramatic picture of the events, accusing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of “barging in” while statutory authorities were exercising their powers. Mehta termed the incident a “shocking pattern,” alleging that the CM, supported by the police, removed digital devices and key documents relevant to the probe.
“The states will feel they can barge in, commit theft, and then sit on a dharna,” Mehta argued, pressing for strict action. He alleged that despite prior intimation to local police, high-ranking officials—including the Director General of Police (DGP), the Commissioner of Police, and the local Deputy Commissioner—arrived at the spot to facilitate the obstruction.
Mehta further claimed that the interference amounted to an offense of theft. “She takes it away. Mobile of ED official also taken away. She even went before media… this will encourage officers to not discharge their duty,” Mehta submitted, urging the court to set an example by suspending the officers present during the incident.
The Defense: “Blatant Lies” and Jurisdictional Objections
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Trinamool Congress chairperson, vehemently denied the ED’s narrative. He termed the allegation that the CM took away digital devices a “blatant lie,” arguing that the ED’s own panchnama (search record) would substantiate that no such seizure of devices by the CM occurred.
Sibal questioned the timing of the raids, noting that the last statement in the relevant coal scam investigation was recorded in February 2024. “Why so keen in the midst of elections?” he asked, suggesting political motivation behind the agency’s sudden action.
On the legal front, Sibal and Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi (appearing for the State and DGP) argued that the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum for this dispute. They contended that the High Court, under Article 226, had the jurisdiction to hear the matter first and that the ED was engaging in “forum shopping.”
State’s Rebuttal on Procedure
Dr. Singhvi raised strong objections regarding the maintainability of the ED’s petition. He argued that the agency’s claims of obstruction were inconsistent with the panchnama.
Countering the Solicitor General’s claim that police were informed in advance, Singhvi submitted that the search began at 6:45 am, but the State received only a “casual email” at around 11:30 am. He alleged that the ED’s current legal maneuver was an attempt to “cover tracks and create a paper trail” for a botched operation.
The Supreme Court, while issuing the notice, noted that the respondents’ objections regarding the maintainability of the petition remain open for future arguments.
