The Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court it has no statutory obligation to inform state police before conducting searches. In its 65-page rejoinder, the ED dismissed claims by Bengal police in the I-PAC investigation involving Mamata Banerjee.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) stated before the Supreme Court that it is not required by law to notify state police prior to conducting searches related to its investigations.
This assertion arises from a legal challenge against the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, who are accused of obstructing the agency’s actions towards the political consultancy firm, Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC).
This situation stems from a January 8 confrontation between the state government and the ED during a search at the residence of I-PAC’s Pratik Jain in Kolkata. While the ED maintains that the search pertains to a case of illegal coal mining, the ruling Trinamool Congress claims it was intended to seize documents linked to their campaign for the upcoming Assembly elections.
I-PAC collaborates closely with Banerjee’s party for electoral campaigns.
In its 65-page response, the ED further argued that Banerjee and the Bengal police infringed on the fundamental rights of its officers during this search.
The agency asserted,
“Every official enjoys the same fundamental rights as an individual and this includes the right to move freely and the right to personal liberty to the extent permissible under law. When an official enters a premise under the authority of law, he is, as an individual, exercising his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Acts of intimidation, use of force, wrongful confinement of the officer and abuse of state machinery to interdict the official from freely going to all places which are legally permissible and taking all legally permissible actions, violates the fundamental right of such an official.”
The ED dismissed claims made by the state government that its officers were investigating armed individuals impersonating central agency officials, labeling it as “wholly false and unsustainable,” since its officials had displayed their identification and search authorization to local police.
The agency noted that Chief Minister Banerjee entered the site during the search and took possession of documents and digital devices.
Regarding Banerjee’s assertion that she “politely requested the ED officers that she be allowed to retrieve the devices and physical files,” the agency refuted this claim, stating,
“Nothing can be farther than the truth. Since the material at the premises was forcibly taken away by Ms. Mamata Banerjee with the aid of her police officers, the ED had no option but to wind up the search so as to avoid physical confrontation between security agencies.”
The ED clarified that the search was not specifically aimed at I-PAC but was conducted under a warrant for Indian-PAC Consulting Private Limited, which allegedly received illicit proceeds from the coal smuggling investigation.
The agency claims to have collected evidence indicating that Rs.20 crores of such proceeds were funneled into I-PAC’s operations through a series of hawala transactions, eventually converted to cash in Goa.
The Supreme Court previously remarked on the seriousness of Banerjee’s purported interference with the ED’s investigation, agreeing to explore whether state law enforcement can impede central investigations into major offenses.
In defense, the Trinamool Congress has denied the accusations, asserting that the ED’s actions were aimed at accessing electoral strategy materials ahead of the polls, while also accusing the BJP-led central government of using investigative agencies to target political adversaries.