Today, On 15th January, The Supreme Court slammed the turmoil in the Calcutta High Court during ED proceedings, asking if it resembled Jantar Mantar. The apex court called it a “serious issue” and announced plans to issue a notice in the matter.
The Supreme Court heard a plea from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that calls for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into allegations against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
The ED contends that Banerjee interfered with their search operations at the office of I-PAC, a political consultancy firm, and with its co-founder, Pratik Jain.
Additionally, the ED is requesting the return of documents that they assert were taken by the Chief Minister after she blocked their raids.
A bench comprising Justices PK Mishra and Vipul Pancholi heard the matter.
The apex court expressed its deep concern today regarding the turmoil in the Calcutta High Court during the hearing related to the ongoing conflict between the Enforcement Directorate and the Trinamool Congress, led by Mamata Banerjee.
The court indicated that this matter represents a “serious issue” and plans to issue a notice.
The Enforcement Directorate has accused Banerjee and officials in West Bengal of obstructing its investigation and hindering searches at the headquarters of I-PAC, a political consultancy affiliated with the Trinamool.
In his representation for the central agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accused Banerjee of theft, claiming she had taken evidence from the home of Pratik Jain, co-founder of I-PAC.
He warned that such actions would encourage state police officers to support these unlawful activities, demanding the suspension of Bengal’s Director General of Police, Rajeev Kumar, along with other senior officers.
Referring to the disruption in the Calcutta High Court on January 9, when a large number of unrelated lawyers interrupted the proceedings, forcing the judge to adjourn the hearing, Mehta remarked,
“This is mobocracy,”
The bench, questioned whether the high court had been turned into Jantar Mantar.
Justice Mishra remarked,
“Was it jantar mantar?“
Solicitor General Mehta pointed out that a WhatsApp message prompted the gathering of lawyers at a specific time, resulting in the chaos.
Adding that the Trinamool’s legal cell had organized the lawyers’ mobilization, he stated,
“Now see what happens when mobocracy overtakes democracy. See what the High Court judge observes in the order. It notes a huge number of lawyers gathered, creating commotion. She stated that the environment in the court was not conducive to a hearing,”
The high court has restricted access to upcoming hearings, allowing only the lawyers involved in the case to attend. It dismissed the Trinamool Congress’s petition after the Enforcement Directorate clarified that no documents were seized during their searches.
The Trinamool has claimed that the central agency confiscated sensitive documents related to the party.
Mehta noted,
“This is not the first time Mamata Banerjee has taken such actions and urged the Supreme Court to resolve the matter definitively.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, questioned the necessity for the ED’s presence in Bengal ahead of the Assembly elections.
He stated,
“The last development in the coal scam case took place in February 2024. What were they doing there in 2026? We all know IPAC takes care of elections in West Bengal. There is a formal contract between IPC and TMC.”
He emphasized the importance of election data confidentiality, saying,
“Election data is confidential and it is all kept there. There will be a lot of info on candidates, etc. Once you have info, how do we fight the election? Chairman (Banerjee) has the right to protect it and thus went there.”
The bench responded to Sibal, indicating that he could not prevent them from issuing a notice in the case.
They commented,
“If they had any intention to seize your election data, they would have taken it, but they did not. You cannot stop us from issuing notice.”
Sibal acknowledged this, replying,
“Of course we can’t; we are only trying to persuade you.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Bengal government and DGP, pointed out that the Enforcement Directorate had raised the issue in both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court.
Addressing the disturbances on January 9, he remarked,
“Yes, you had an issue on January 9, but that cannot be an excuse to ride two different horses. Sometimes emotions go out of hand, and we understand what the court is saying. The relevant test is yesterday.”
The bench replied,
“Emotions cannot go out of hand repeatedly.”
Additionally, At the beginning of the hearing The Enforcement Directorate (ED) informed the Supreme Court that the West Bengal government’s interference and obstruction, particularly from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, during its investigation and search at the I-PAC office, as well as at the residence of its chief, reflects a deeply troubling pattern.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, stated before a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi that Banerjee has previously intruded whenever statutory authorities have exercised their powers.
He asserted,
“It reflects a very shocking pattern emerging, When a statutory authority was discharging it’s function… the CM Banerjee barges in, the Commissioner of police comes with her and then sits on dharna.”
He also argued that such actions could encourage further misconduct and demoralize central forces. Mehta expressed concern that state officials might feel encouraged to “barge in, commit theft, and then sit on a dharna,” emphasizing the need to take a firm stand by suspending those officers who were present during the incident.
The ED’s petition to the Supreme Court stems from events on January 8, when its officials encountered obstacles during raids at the political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its head, Pratik Jain, in connection with a coal smuggling investigation.
The agency claims that Chief Minister Banerjee entered the premises and removed key evidence relevant to the investigation.
In response, the chief minister has accused the central agency of overreach, while her party, Trinamool Congress, has rejected the ED’s allegations of interference.
Additionally, the state’s police have filed an FIR against ED officers.
Earlier, The Enforcement Directorate (ED) approached the Supreme Court, alleging that the West Bengal government, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has been obstructing its probe during searches at the I-PAC office and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata.
Previously, the West Bengal government also 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.
This situation arises after the ED conducted searches at various locations related to I-PAC and Pratik Jain in Kolkata on January 8.
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.
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.
Additionally, On 14th January, Yesterday, the High Court postponed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) plea at the request of its counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, who informed the Court that a similar case is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) submitted a petition to the High Court, seeking protection for sensitive and confidential political data that it alleged was confiscated by the ED during the I-PAC raids.
The High Court concluded this TMC plea yesterday after noting the ED’s assurance that no such data had been taken.
The proceedings at the Calcutta High Court took an unexpected turn on January 9 when Justice Suvra Ghosh left the courtroom due to overcrowding.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
