Today, On 14th January, ED vs Mamata Banerjee Row, Calcutta High Court adjourns ED and TMC petitions linked to recent I-PAC raids conducted by the Enforcement Directorate. The court noted, “Liberty to mention after Supreme Court is disposed of,” pausing proceedings until the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Calcutta High Court that both its own petitions and those from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) regarding last week’s searches at the residence and office of political consultancy firm director Pratik Jain should be postponed, as the agency has brought the matter before the Supreme Court.
Justice Suvra Ghosh presided over the hearing.
TMC counsel Menaka Guruswamy argued that the party was simply seeking to protect its data.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s lawyer, Kalyan Banerjee, opposed the ED’s request for adjournment.
The CM has been included as a party in the ED’s petition before the high court.
Representing the ED, additional solicitor general SV Raju mentioned to Justice Suvra Ghosh’s bench that the agency requests a delay in the high court proceedings because it has submitted a petition on the same matter to the Supreme Court.
He asserted that a high court should refrain from hearing a case while it is still pending in the apex court.
The Calcutta High Court adjourned the hearing on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea linked to its request for registration of an FIR against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
The Bench recorded that the issue could not be taken up at this stage because a similar matter is already pending before the Supreme Court.
While passing the brief order, the High Court stated,
“On the ground that the ED has filed SLP with prayers which are almost identical, the matter is adjourned. Liberty to mention after the matter before Supreme Court is disposed of.”
Justice Suvra Ghosh today noted the statement and closed the TMC’s plea requesting protection for sensitive political data that the ED may have seized from I-PAC during its raids.
The Court stated,
“The only prayer is for the preservation of the political confidential data and protection of the same from being circulated to any entity by ED. The other prayers are not pressed. Ld counsel for respondents (ED, Central government) submits nothing whatsoever was seized from the two premises. Copies of panchnamas drawn up at alleged places of search and seizure demonstrate that nothing was seized from either of the office of [I-PAC] or the Director [of I-PAC]. In view of the submissions, nothing remains. The application was disposed of,”
The request for adjournment faced strong opposition from Senior Advocates Kalyan Bandyopadhyay and Menaka Guruswamy, representing the TMC.
When ASG Raju objected to TMC’s counsel interrupting him, he questioned why he was not permitted to finish his arguments.
Guruswamy responded by stating,
“Why is (ED) so worried? Extraordinary sign of bullying by ED.”
In defense, ASG Raju argued,
“How can she argue? They are on caveat (before the Supreme Court).”
Guruswamy clarified,
“We are not. We are not a party before the Supreme Court. There was a search; our privacy may be maintained. We live in a constitutional democracy. We want our political data to be saved. There is a right to privacy. Political ideology is protected. We only request that our political data be protected and not released in the media and not used in a political fashion.”
She further emphasized,
“Unlike Mr. Raju, I don’t bully courts. Let me be very clear.”
This prompted a sharp reaction from ASG Raju, who questioned how Guruswamy could be so certain that the TMC is not involved in the ED’s Supreme Court plea.
Guruswamy replied,
“Case status, Mr. Raju,”
Another counsel for the Central government challenged the validity of TMC’s plea, especially since the Election Commission of India (ECI) was made a party. The Centre’s counsel also questioned how the ED’s raids on I-PAC affected TMC’s rights enough to warrant a writ petition.
He inquired,
“This writ petition is basically in respect of SIR. ECI is to be made party… A search was conducted at someone else’s property. A writ petition can only be filed by someone whose rights have been infringed. What rights [of TMC] are infringed?”
ASG Raju added that TMC’s petition lacks maintainability since Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is not involved in it.
He stated,
“The record, if any seized, was by Mamata Banerjee. She has taken possession illegally and committed an offense. Unless she is made a party by TMC, the plea is not maintainable. No records were seized by the ED,”
Raju also claimed that TMC had submitted a false affidavit, pointing out that it was sworn by a person who was not present during the ED’s raids and therefore could not make relevant claims about them.
He argued,
“The petition is filed by a stranger. Kindly look at who the petitioner is. How does he become acquainted? He was not there during the search. The petitioner is All India Trinamool Congress, he is an authorized signatory. Where is the authority? Was he present when so-called material was seized? He states facts ‘true to my knowledge’ a false statement on oath. He was nowhere in the picture. I am showing he [TMC representative] has filed a false affidavit. The search has nothing to do with Trinamool Congress. The person [whose premise was searched] has not approached the Court,”
Raju asserted that the issues he highlighted in TMC’s petition could not be rectified, as they go to the root of the matter and amount to perjury.
“The person who has signed off on TMC’s petition was unconnected with the place of search and was not present during the ED’s actions,”
He said,
“How can a third person who has not seen anything file such a petition? This petition has been filed by an incompetent person who could not have verified the correctness of the claims.”
He maintained that TMC’s petition suffers from vagueness, asserting that it is unmaintainable on that basis as well.
He said,
“What was the sensitive data seized? Nothing. The petition should be rejected on the grounds of vagueness… What data have been seized? I am stating that we have not seized anything. Mamata Banerjee has,”
He reiterated that the High Court should postpone all related petitions since a corresponding plea from the ED is still pending in the Supreme Court.
In response, Senior Advocate Guruswamy urged the Court to officially record ASG Raju’s statement that the ED had not seized any data related to the TMC.
She stated,
“Mr. Raju’s statement may be recorded, as he is appearing for ED, that nothing was seized. He has asked my lady to record that. I will also join him in this request,”
Guruswamy emphasized that TMC had valid reasons for approaching the Court, countering ASG’s critique of the party’s actions.
She argued,
“It is inappropriate and unbecoming to bully a political party that has filed a petition during a time when it believed that personal data relevant to the upcoming elections was being held by their political strategist not just from yesterday or the day before, but over the past six years. It is a well-founded fear, and that is why we came to court,”
She also asserted that the TMC member who signed the petition was duly authorized to do so on behalf of the party.
She concluded,
“There is no grand conspiracy here. We all seek free and fair elections. We find it suspect that our political strategist’s office was targeted in this way just months before the elections,”
The Court ultimately disposed of TMC’s plea after recording the ED’s assurance that nothing had been seized during the raids.
Earlier, On 9th January, The Calcutta High Court postponed the hearing on the Enforcement Directorate’s request for filing an FIR against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, after the courtroom turned too chaotic to continue the proceedings.
Earlier, The Enforcement Directorate (ED) approached theSupreme Court, alleging that the West Bengal government, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has been obstructing its probe during searches at theI-PAC office and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata.
Simultaneously, the West Bengal government filed a caveat in the Apex Court, requesting that no orders be issued without considering its position in the matter. A caveat, as per Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, ensures that the court does not grant any ex parte orders against a party without allowing it an opportunity to respond.
The ED’s plea follows its recent application to the Calcutta High Court, wherein it sought a CBI probe into alleged interference during its searches by the state police and senior officials. The agency earlier claimed that Chief Minister Banerjee had entered the search site and removed vital evidence, breaching search protocols.
This situation arises after the ED conducted searches at various locations related to I-PAC and Pratik Jain in Kolkata on January 8.
These actions were part of a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged multi-crore coal pilferage scandal. The ED has asserted that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly intruded during the raid, taking away significant evidence, including documents and electronic devices. Banerjee, however, has firmly rejected these charges and accused the central agency of overstepping its bounds.
Earlier, On January 9, the ED additionally approached the Calcutta High Court seeking a CBI investigation against Banerjee. The agency alleged that the Chief Minister, aided by the state police, disrupted search procedures and removed incriminating materials during the operation at Pratik Jain’s residence.
The ED has requested the High Court to order the immediate seizure, sealing, and forensic preservation of the digital devices and documents purportedly taken from the site. The petition also asks for interim measures to prevent access to, deletion of, or tampering with the seized data.
Moreover, the ED has claimed that local witnesses, known as panch witnesses, were hijacked by state officials and coerced into stating that the search was uneventful and that no incriminating evidence was found.
The petition argues,
“The witnesses were made to record false statements contrary to the true facts.”
Banerjee has countered these allegations, accusing the ED of functioning as a political tool for the BJP to “steal” her party’s internal strategies.
Earlier, she led a ten-kilometer protest march from Jadavpur to Hazra Crossing in Kolkata, asserting her innocence, she proclaimed during the rally,
“I intervened as the TMC chairperson, not as chief minister. They came to steal my party data. I will expose everything if needed,”
The proceedings at the Calcutta High Court took an unexpected turn on January 9 when Justice Suvra Ghosh left the courtroom due to overcrowding.
The matter is anticipated to be addressed again on Wednesday, January 14, after the court closes for the weekend.
Case Title: ALL INDIA TRINAMOOL CONGRESS VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. WPA/602/2026
Read Live Coverage
