Today, On 9th January, The Calcutta High Court noted that a main petition and an ED counter case are pending before the same bench, fixing both for a joint hearing at 2:30 PM as it urged counsel, “Temperatures are really low… please don’t raise temperatures.”
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court today informed that two connected cases a main petition and a counter case filed by the Enforcement Directorate are pending before the same bench.
The court proposed to hear both matters together later in the day.
The Single Judge Bench Justice Suvra Ghosh heard the matter.
At the beginning of the hearing, the counsel stated,
“Absolutely not a PMLA matter. It is a PMLA matter. Not a PMLA matter.”
They added,
“This is not a bail or an anti-arrest case, my Lord. Absolutely not a PMLA matter, my Lord.”
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate’s counsel argued that the petition was misconceived, relying heavily on a recent press release.
The counsel stated,
“I’m appearing on behalf of the ED. This is a press release of by CBI. That has been made yesterday… after the raid was over,”
The ED further alleged attempts to obstruct the agency’s work, saying,
“CM has taken oath of the Constitution. CM is preventing the law enforcement agency, my Lord, from discharging their duties.”
Certain lawyers sought to intervene in the case, claiming it involved public interest rather than just an individual dispute.
An intervenor submitted,
“Yes. From the public at large, my Lord. This cannot be an individual matter,”
The bench questioned the maintainability of such intervention.
The court asked,
“Intervention… No. Because this plea cannot… Who are you?”
In response, the lawyers identified themselves as officers of the court and members of a lawyers’ union.
They said,
“We are… officers of the court… And also, we represent a lawyers’ union, my Lord,”
They argued the matter involved a public office holder, adding,
“Because she holds the public office, my Lord. She is our Chief Minister. She is holding the public office.”
The court clarified that interventions could only be made through a public interest litigation, noting,
“If you want to intervene… you can go in for a public interest litigation. But this… they have come here for certain relief.”
The bench emphasized that the present petitions were confined to relief sought by the parties.
The intervenors also cited earlier incidents involving alleged obstruction of central agencies, referencing cases like Rajiv Kumar and Sandeshkhali.
The counsel argued,
“In case of Rajiv Kumar, as well as the Sandeshkhali matter… these goons prevented them on two occasions. The police of the state has prevented them,”
The court curtailed these submissions, instructing,
“Please confine your submission to the present matter, not earlier matters.”
When the counsel continued citing apprehensions of similar conduct, the bench responded,
“No, no. But they are conducted by the same person, my Lord. We are apprehending the same conduct which will be used. That’s why we are coming. He misuses the administrative post also.”
The bench reiterated that broader public concerns must be raised through proper public interest litigation, observing,
“Public interest litigation, I could have understood. This is not… Not really public interest litigation.”
Finally, the court directed all parties to reconvene at 2:30 pm for a consolidated hearing of both matters, stating,
“Please come back at 2.30 p.m… I think they have no right to intervene in this issue,”
The proceedings were adjourned to 2:30 PM for further hearings.
The Bench urged everyone to maintain calm, stating,
“Temperatures are really low… Please do not raise temperatures.”
The Enforcement Directorate, in its petition before the Calcutta High Court, has claimed that Mamata Banerjee allegedly interfered with and blocked the agency’s search operations. These searches were connected to a money-laundering probe that arose from a CBI case related to suspected coal smuggling.
According to the agency, the raid was part of an investigation into suspected proceeds of crime and possible hawala routes linked to the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC).
Earlier, The Trinamool Congress (TMC) and political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) have moved the Calcutta High Court, challenging the legality of searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at multiple locations linked to the firm in Kolkata and Bidhannagar.
Additionally, Yesterday, The Enforcement Directorate (ED) approached the Calcutta High Court, claiming it encountered obstacles while conducting raids on the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) as part of an ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
ED counsel requested an urgent hearing, stating that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the residence of I-PAC chief Prateek Jain and removed critical evidence while the raids were taking place.
The ED further alleged that Mamata Banerjee and other leaders from the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) obstructed the investigation during the agency’s simultaneous raids at the I-PAC office.
The agency reported executing raids at ten locations, including six in Kolkata and four in Delhi.
The ED stated,
“During the search, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Kolkata, and the Officer in Charge of Sarani Police Station arrived at one of the sites to verify the officials’ identities. Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, along with several officers, also entered the premises. They were briefed about the proceedings by the Authorized Officer, who showed his identity card,”
The ED added,
“Proceedings were being conducted in a peaceful and professional manner until West Bengal Chief Minister Ms. Mamata Banerjee arrived with a significant number of police officials. Ms. Banerjee entered Prateek Jain’s residence and took away key evidence, including physical documents and electronic devices. Her convoy then moved to the I-PAC office, where she, her aides, and state police personnel forcibly removed physical documents and electronic evidence,”
These actions, the ED claims, have obstructed the ongoing investigation and proceedings under the PMLA.
The agency clarified that the searches are evidence-based and not aimed at any political establishment,
“No party office has been searched. The search is not linked to any elections and is part of a regular effort against money laundering. The searches are conducted strictly in accordance with established legal safeguards.”
Mamata Banerjee referred to the ED raids at I-PAC as “most unfortunate.”
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee denied the ED’s claims, terming the raids “most unfortunate”. She said the central agency was attempting to seize sensitive Trinamool Congress documents related to party activities and upcoming Assembly elections.
Case Title: ALL INDIA TRINAMOOL CONGRESS VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. WPA/602/2026