E-Paper
SC flags ‘lawlessness’, takes up ED’s pleas on WB raids
A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi admitted two petitions filed by ED and three of its officers
The Supreme Court on Thursday described as “very serious” the confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government over searches linked to political consultancy firm I-PAC, and issued notices to chief minister Mamata Banerjee, the state’s director general of police and the Kolkata police commissioner on allegations of obstruction of a money laundering investigation by a central agency.
A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi admitted two petitions filed by ED and three of its officers, seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation into the events of January 8, when ED teams were allegedly prevented from completing searches at the I-PAC office in Kolkata and the residence of its director Pratik Jain. The bench rejected the state government’s preliminary objection that the dispute should first be examined by the Calcutta High Court and fixed the matter for further hearing on February 3.
“This is a very serious matter. We will have to examine this,” observed the bench, noting that the petitions raise issues that go to the heart of the rule of law and the independence of investigating agencies.
In a strongly worded order, the court recorded its prima facie view that the case involves allegations of “grave interference” by state authorities in the lawful discharge of duties by a central agency. It said judicial intervention was necessary to ensure “adherence to the rule of law and to allow each organ to function independently,” warning that unchecked interference could result in “a situation of lawlessness” in states governed by different political parties.
“For adherence of the 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 shield of law enforcement agencies of a particular state,” stated the bench in its order.
The court emphasised that while no central agency the power to interfere with the election work of any party, “the question arises as to whether by taking shield of its party activity, the agencies can be obstructed from carrying out its investigating power.”
As interim measures, the court directed the West Bengal government to preserve CCTV footage and all electronic and digital records relating to the January 8 searches, including footage from the premises involved and surrounding areas. It also stayed all proceedings arising from four FIRs registered by Kolkata Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, observing that the matter was “delicate” and that the local police could not be permitted to probe further.
The bench further sought replies from the state government and state DGP Rajeev Kumar on ED”s plea, seeking Kumar’s suspension over his dharna alongside CM Banerjee after her rally protesting the agency’s searches at the firm’s Kolkata office and director Jain’s residence. ED has also demanded disciplinary action against top state police officials, with directives to DoPT and the Union Home Ministry.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, alleged that the chief minister personally led senior police officers to the search sites and forcibly removed documents and digital devices seized by ED officials. Mehta described the incident as amounting to “theft and robbery” of evidence and claimed that ED officers were intimidated, threatened and prevented from completing searches authorised under law.
Mehta further argued that the events in Kolkata were not isolated and reflected a recurring pattern of interference whenever central agencies investigate cases involving the ruling party in the state. He pointed to what he described as a “complete breakdown of the justice delivery system” on January 9, when ED’s urgent plea could not be taken up by the Calcutta High Court due to commotion in courtrooms, which he characterised as “mobocracy”.
Opposing the petitions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, argued that ED had approached the Supreme Court while proceedings on related issues were pending before the Calcutta High Court. He contended that the chief minister entered the premises in her capacity as party chairperson to protect confidential election-related material and accused ED of deliberately timing the searches to coincide with the election season.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state government and the director general of police, raised objections to the maintainability of the petitions and argued that the dispute involved questions of fact that should be examined by the high court in the first instance. He added that ED’s petitions in the apex court amounted to forum shopping. Senior counsel Shyam Divan, appearing for the Kolkata police commissioner and another officer, echoed these submissions and urged the Supreme Court to allow the high court proceedings to continue.
The bench rejected these objections at the threshold, expressing deep concern over reports that court proceedings in the Calcutta High Court had been disrupted on January 9. “Today it is this high court, tomorrow it would be some other high court. That’s our worry,” observed the bench, underlining the Supreme Court’s responsibility to intervene where the functioning of constitutional courts is affected.
According to ED, the January 8 searches were conducted as part of a money laundering investigation linked to alleged illegal coal mining, involving suspected proceeds of crime amounting to ₹2,742.32 crore. The agency has claimed that more than ₹20 crore in suspected proceeds of crime were connected to entities associated with the I-PAC director through hawala channels.
Apart from the institutional plea filed by ED, a separate petition by three ED officers has sought a CBI investigation into the episode, alleging threats to their personal safety and violations of their fundamental rights while discharging official duties. The court directed all respondents to file their replies within two weeks.
The legal confrontation follows ED searches conducted at 10 locations , six in West Bengal and four in Delhi, in connection with a money laundering probe linked to alleged coal smuggling kingpin Anup Majee. Among the premises searched were the Salt Lake office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director Pratik Jain.
ED has alleged that nearly ₹10 crore in proceeds of crime were routed to I-PAC through hawala channels and that the firm was paid by the Trinamool Congress for services during the 2022 Goa assembly elections. I-PAC has been associated with the TMC since the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and is currently engaged with the party ahead of upcoming elections.
Meanwhile, the Kolkata Police registered FIRs against ED officials following complaints by Jain’s family and TMC leaders alleging theft and illegal search. Banerjee has publicly accused the ED of attempting to “steal” her party’s election strategy and led a protest march in Kolkata, defending her entry into the premises being raided.
