Today, On 15th January, The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Mamata Banerjee and the West Bengal government, warning that the ED’s plea alleging obstruction during I-PAC raids. The apex court remarked that it “could lead to lawlessness if we do not intervene,” signalling stern judicial action.
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 issued a notice to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, and others in response to a plea from the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The ED accuses them of obstructing its recent searches at the political consultancy firm I-PAC and at the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain.
The Bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi also requested responses from Banerjee, Kumar, and others regarding the ED’s request for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into their actions.
The Court observed that the petitions submitted by the ED raised significant questions,
“We are of the prima facie view that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and interference by other State agencies. According to us for adherence of rule of law in the country and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that offenders are not allowed to be protected under the seal of law enforcing agencies of particular State.”
The Court noted that “unresolved issues could exacerbate the situation, leading to a potential situation of lawlessness” in various states.
In addition to the CBI inquiry request, the ED has also sought a directive for the return of evidence that CM Banerjee allegedly removed from locations linked to I-PAC.
Previously, the ED had submitted a similar plea to the Calcutta High Court, which postponed the matter on Wednesday at the central agency’s request.
Today, the Supreme Court asked Banerjee and others to file their counter affidavits to the ED’s petitions within two weeks. The Court also mandated the preservation of CCTV footage and other storage devices related to both the searched premises and nearby areas.
Furthermore, the Court stayed the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the West Bengal Police against ED officers involved in the searches.
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.
He further noted that the ED had informed local police prior to the searches, yet CM Banerjee allegedly removed files and even took an ED officer’s phone.
He added,
“It is an offence of theft. She took an ED officer’s phone as well. This will only encourage such acts, and the central forces will be demoralized. The State will feel they can barge in, commit theft, and then sit on dharna,”
Mehta sought the suspension of police officers who accompanied CM Banerjee during her entrance into the ED-searched premises.
The SG added,
“Let an example be set that officers be placed under suspension and let there be a departmental inquiry,”
When the Court queried about the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition, Mehta explained that while the central agency filed a plea, Deputy Director Robin Bansal and three other officers had separate petitions in their individual capacities.
Mehta added,
“This is pure theft. I am seeking to implead the [WB] chief secretary and the departmental officers. Earlier, CBI officers went, and there was a judicial probe by this Court regarding the chit fund scam. CBI officers were arrested and taken to the police station. The CM staged a dharna,”
He also pointed to the disturbances that arose during the previous week’s High Court session, noting that the head of the Trinamool Congress’ legal cell prompted its members to gather in the courtroom.
Additionally, Mehta mentioned that Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju’s microphone was repeatedly muted during that session.
Mehta stated,
“We approached the HC. Now see what happens when mobocracy overtakes democracy. See what the HC judge observes in the order. It notes a huge number of lawyers gathered, creating commotion. She stated the environment in court was not conducive for a hearing,”
He outlined the ongoing money laundering investigation and noted that the police and those connected to the premises were informed ahead of time about the ED’s search.
Mehta emphasized,
“I don’t know what was hidden to warrant such a drastic move as having the Chief Minister herself enter, accompanied by the DGP and Commissioner of Police,”
He asserted that the “accused had the courage to present incriminating evidence publicly.”
The SG urged the Court to intervene against the CM and WB police officers,
“Let a message go once and for all,”
Representing ED Assistant Directors Nishant Kumar, Vikram Ahlawat, and Prashant Chandila, ASG Raju, argued that given a cognizable offence had occurred, an FIR must be registered per established legal precedents.
Raju argued,
“Hearing an accused is unheard of before registering the FIR. This is a case of theft, robbery, and dacoity,”
He also stated that the Chief Minister is implicated and that the theft was executed in collusion with the DGP.
The ASG maintained,
“The head of police in West Bengal is an accomplice. She is also the home minister… that is why a CBI probe is needed,”
He pointed out that officers could approach the Supreme Court directly when their rights were infringed.
Raju stated,
“If I don’t come here directly, then my fundamental right will be affected,”
However, the Court challenged Raju to explain why the High Court shouldn’t handle the case. During the afternoon session, SG Mehta responded to the inquiry.
Mehta asserted,
“Here ED officers are before you to seek protection of their Article 21 right… they were threatened. I am also here for the rights of the victims of money laundering,”
Raju added that four FIRs were filed against ED officers by West Bengal police to exert pressure on them, clarifying that the officers were not named in the FIRs.
Both SG Mehta and ASG Raju requested a stay on these FIRs and urged the Court to order the preservation of CCTV recordings from the premises searched by the ED.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, contended that the matter ought to be addressed by the High Court first, as the ED had already initiated a plea there.
Noting that a hearing had proceeded peacefully the previous Wednesday in the High Court, Sibal pointed out,
“They are filing parallel proceedings,”
On the substantive issue, Sibal argued that I-PAC managed election campaigns for the Trinamool Congress and retained information pertinent to the political party. He stressed that the ED was aware of this, asserting a pattern of ED interference in states during election periods.
He questioned,
“All election data is confidential and kept there. Many details regarding candidates are involved. Why was there a need to search during the election?”
He noted that since February 24, 2024, the last statement about the coal scam was recorded, questioning the ED’s inaction till now.
Sibal claimed that Banerjee only entered the premises as the Chairman of Trinamool Congress, not in her capacity as Chief Minister, and that she removed only a laptop and an iPhone containing party-related information.
He argued that no obstruction was documented in the panchnama signed by the ED.
Adding that the items had party material, hence the ED’s intentions were malicious, Sibal stated,
“It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. Refer to that panchnama as well. This is merely to create prejudice,”
However, the Court responded that no such data was removed by the ED.
Justice Mishra remarked,
“If they had any intention to seize your election data, they would have taken it, but they did not. You cannot prevent us from issuing notice,”
Sibal then replied,
“Of course we can’t; we’re only trying to persuade you.”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of West Bengal and the DGP, also questioned the maintainability of the ED’s plea under Article 32.
He argued,
“If a notice is issued, it should be clear that there is strong opposition to the maintainability of this petition. It is only permitted in exceptional circumstances where the ED is entirely helpless. I represent the State of West Bengal and the DGP. I also raise the issue of forum shopping since the prayers are the same in both the HC and SC,”
He emphasized that the disturbances seen in the High Court should not justify maintaining parallel proceedings.
Referring to the previous day’s proceedings in the High Court,he added,
“Yes, you had an issue on January 9, but that cannot be an excuse to ride two different horses. Emotions sometimes escalate, and we understand what the court is conveying. The pertinent test is yesterday,”
The Court replied,
“Emotions cannot go out of hand repeatedly.”
Continuing with his arguments, Singhvi stated that the police had been informed about the ED searches hours in advance, but the information provided was inaccurate.
The senior counsel noted,
“We were only informed by a casual email stating 11:30 am, yet you began searching at 6:45 am,”
Singhvi asserted that the DGP’s duty was to accompany the Chief Minister, as she is a Z-category protectee.
The Supreme Court has scheduled its next hearing list for February 3, 2026.
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.
This investigation is linked to a money-laundering case involving coal scam. Reports indicate that the ED claims state officials interfered with its operations, disrupting an ongoing investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The agency’s petition seeks the Supreme Court’s involvement to facilitate an uninterrupted investigation into the purported transfer of hawala funds associated with the coal scam to the political consultancy firm I-PAC, which has collaborated with theTrinamool Congress (TMC).
Previously, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan represented two additional police officers targeted by the ED.
Along with SG Mehta and ASG Raju, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain also appeared for the Enforcement Directorate.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shyam Divan, and Kalyan Bandyopadhyay represented the respondents.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal