West Bengal has told the Supreme Court that the Enforcement Directorate’s own records show the I-PAC searches were conducted peacefully without police interference. The State also argued that ED’s Article 32 plea is not maintainable as a government agency cannot claim violation of fundamental rights.
The State of West Bengal has informed the Supreme Court of India that the searches carried out by the Enforcement Directorate at the offices of political consultancy firm Indian PAC Consulting Private Limited (I-PAC) were never stopped or obstructed, and that even the ED’s own panchnama shows this clearly.
The State has also strongly argued that the ED’s petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is not legally maintainable, because Article 32 can be used only by citizens to approach the Supreme Court for protection of their fundamental rights. According to the State, a government agency like the ED cannot claim violation of fundamental rights.
This stand has been taken through four separate counter-affidavits filed by the State government, the Director General of Police (DGP), West Bengal, the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division. These affidavits were filed in response to the ED’s Article 32 petition relating to searches conducted at the I-PAC office in Salt Lake and at the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain at Loudon Street.
The issue arose after Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder on January 8, at a time when the ED was conducting searches in connection with a money-laundering investigation.
It has been alleged that the Chief Minister removed several documents and electronic devices from the premises. However, Banerjee claimed that the materials contained information related to her political party. Reports have stated that I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
The ED has stated that the searches were part of its probe into a 2020 money-laundering case registered against businessman Anup Majee, who has been accused of involvement in illegal coal smuggling activities.
According to the ED, a coal smuggling syndicate led by Majee used to illegally extract coal from Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) leasehold areas in West Bengal and sell it to various factories and plants in the State. The ED has further alleged that a significant quantity of this illegally mined coal was sold to the Shakambhari Group of companies.
Initially, the ED approached the Calcutta High Court against Mamata Banerjee. However, the High Court could not hear the matter due to unruly scenes inside the courtroom.
Following this, the ED moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, accusing the Chief Minister and State officials of interfering with its investigation and search operations.
In its petition, the ED claimed that its search operations at the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder were disrupted due to the intervention of the Chief Minister and senior police officials. According to the ED, this intervention led to the removal of important physical and electronic evidence and prevented officers from performing their duties as per law.
The ED also requested that a CBI investigation be ordered in the matter.
When the case was taken up on January 15, the Supreme Court observed that
“there would be lawlessness in the country if it does not examine the issues raised by the ED.”
Based on this observation, the Court issued notices to Mamata Banerjee, DGP Rajeev Kumar, and other officials, directing them to file their replies.
In response, the State government and the police officials have now placed their affidavits before the Court.
In its affidavit, the West Bengal government has stated that the ED’s petition does not show any violation of fundamental rights and therefore does not fall within the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution. The State has clearly argued that the ED, being an instrumentality of the State, cannot seek enforcement of fundamental rights.
The State has further submitted that the reliefs sought by the ED relate to criminal law and statutory remedies and not to constitutional enforcement.
On facts, the State has pointed out that even as per the ED’s own version, the head of a political party with Z plus security visited two premises during the searches and was later allowed to leave. The affidavit highlights that the ED did not record any objection at that time.
The State has also noted that the ED had already approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 on the same issue and that those proceedings have been kept in abeyance due to the pending Supreme Court case.
The Director General of Police, Rajeev Kumar, has stated in his affidavit that he was not present during the initial stages of the searches and has denied all allegations made against him.
Regarding the I-PAC office at Salt Lake, the DGP has explained that police action began only after information was received that armed individuals wearing camouflage were present inside the premises and were not allowing police verification.
The affidavit records that an email from the ED informing the police about the search was received later in the morning, by which time a law and order situation had already developed, with media persons and members of the public gathering at the spot.
The DGP has stated that his involvement was limited to managing security and maintaining public order, especially after receiving information that the Chief Minister would be visiting the location. He has emphasized that Mamata Banerjee is a Z plus protectee and that adequate security arrangements were necessary.
According to the affidavit, by the time the DGP reached the I-PAC office, a written complaint had already been filed and a police case registered. It further states that the ED search continued thereafter and concluded in the evening without any police interference.
The Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, has restricted his affidavit to events at 7, Loudon Street, which is the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain. He has clarified that the Salt Lake search was outside his jurisdiction.
He has stated that police presence at Loudon Street was due to information about armed persons entering a residential building and refusing to identify themselves or allow verification.
The Commissioner has said that he reached the premises shortly before the Chief Minister arrived and that his role was confined to providing security because of her Z plus status.
He has recorded that the Chief Minister arrived at around 12:05 pm and left after about ten minutes, following which he too exited the premises.
The affidavit denies any interference with the ED’s search and relies on the panchnama prepared by the ED itself, which records that the search was conducted peacefully and without damage to any person or property.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, has also stated that his role was limited to Loudon Street and that the ED has wrongly combined two separate incidents under different police jurisdictions into a single narrative.
He has explained that ED officers later disclosed their identity and requested him to accompany them inside the premises only to verify the search authorisation.
The DCP has categorically denied issuing any instructions to stop the search, seizing any documents, or threatening or restraining ED officers.
He has further stated that the search continued even after senior police officers left the premises and concluded peacefully later in the afternoon.
The DCP has objected to the ED’s request for transfer of investigation, stating that it is settled law that an accused person does not have the right to choose the investigating agency.
He has also pointed out that the ED had already approached the Calcutta High Court and that filing a petition before the Supreme Court amounts to pursuing parallel proceedings.
Across all four affidavits, the West Bengal authorities have taken a consistent position that the ED’s investigation was never stopped or obstructed, that police action was driven purely by law and order, verification, and security requirements, and that the ED’s own records contradict its claims of disruption.
They have also jointly questioned the ED’s decision to invoke Article 32 for a matter involving disputed facts and statutory issues rather than any constitutional violation.
Case Title:
Enforcement Directorate vs State of West Bengal
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on I-PAC Searches
