The Supreme Court adjourned the Enforcement Directorate’s writ petition accusing former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state officials of interfering with its probe. The plea concerns obstruction of searches at I-PAC’s Kolkata offices and premises linked to co-founder Pratik Jain.
The Supreme Court adjourned the hearing on the Enforcement Directorate’s writ petition against former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other state officials.
The petition alleges interference with the ED’s investigation and obstruction of searches carried out at the Kolkata offices of the political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and at the location associated with its co-founder Pratik Jain.
The Bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and N.V. Anjaria directed that the matter would be taken up after the Court’s partial working days, and posted the case for hearing on August 18.
During the proceedings, however, the hearing included a light exchange between the Bench and senior counsel.
When the case was called, Justice Mishra asked Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee,
“Mr. Kalyan Banerjee where are you?”
Banerjee replied that he was appearing virtually due to directions from the Chief Justice mandating virtual appearances on Mondays and Fridays.
He said,
“I am here virtually. The Hon’ble Chief Justice directed Monday and Friday will be in virtual, that’s why I’m in virtual,”
Justice Mishra then, in a bantering tone, remarked that physical appearances had also been permitted.
The judge said,
“He has permitted physically also now. Only for you the circular was changed. Now you have to appear personally,”
The Bench posted the matter for August 18 and stated,
“Let us have it on 18th August, Tuesday.”
Banerjee responded humorously,
“I am missing the interaction with your lordships.”
Justice Mishra replied,
“Yes, we are also missing. Kalyan Bandopadhyay appearing physically is different.”
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju then joined the exchange, saying,
“When he appears from the other side there’s more weight.”
Justice Mishra continued,
“Yes there’s always more weight.”
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who was also present, declined to comment, stating,
“I am not commenting on that.”
The ED’s petition raises allegations that West Bengal officials interfered with the ED’s probe and searches conducted at I-PAC’s Kolkata office in connection with an ongoing investigation.
Last month, Senior Counsel Mehta told the Bench that,
“The sitting Chief Minister has actively caused obstruction in investigation…Rule of Law ceases to operate when executive uses state machinery to obstruct investigation.”
ALSO READ: I-PAC Raids Row: Supreme Court Adjourns ED Plea Against Mamata Banerjee To Feb 10
Earlier, the court had sharply criticized Mamata Banerjee for alleged interference in a pending investigation, noting that such conduct puts democracy in peril.
The Bench had observed that,
“This is not a dispute between the State and the Union,”
It also added that,
“A Chief Minister of any State cannot walk into the midst of an investigation, put the democracy in peril, and then say don’t convert this into a dispute between the State and the Union,”
The court further remarked that the situation was unprecedented and went beyond ordinary federal disagreements, stating,
“We never thought that in this country a day would come where a sitting Chief Minister would walk into the office where an investigating agency is probing a case,”
The court had previously raised pointed questions to the West Bengal government regarding its objection to the maintainability of a plea filed by the ED. The court asked whether officers of the agency would lose their fundamental rights merely because they are government officials.
The case involves the ED’s plea against the West Bengal Chief Minister and certain state police officers, alleging obstruction of a search at I-PAC’s office.
More recently, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra told the court that the ED must explain how it has been “weaponized” in the state. Responding sharply, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju said, “It has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized..”. In a complete shift in position, Mamata Banerjee informed the court that during the ED’s search at I-PAC’s office—where the firm is linked with the All India Trinamool Congress—she was allowed to retrieve devices and physical files.
On January 15, the court issued notice on petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its officers alleging interference by Mamata Banerjee and senior state police officials during a search at I-PAC’s office and at the residence of Prateek Jain.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of West Bengal
