ED vs Mamata Banerjee in Supreme Court: On Thursday, January 15, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress (TMC), asked, “Why was there a need to start this just before the elections. This is in your petition that the last statement was recorded in February 2024,” during a Supreme Court hearing on State Enforcement Officer Bangaleef Mamata’s plea against the Bengal State Directorate Bangaleefafe of accusing the Bengal State Directorate Bangaleefafe Mamata of the central agency’s investigation and search operation at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder Pratik Jain.
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard hotly contested disputes between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over the central agency’s alleged interference in search operations at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the headquarters of its co-founder Pratik Jain, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioning the timing of the election raid. The court described the matter as “very serious” and indicated that it would investigate the allegations in detail.
The ED reports a “shocking pattern” of obstruction
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi that the agency’s plea reflected a “very shocking pattern” and alleged that whenever the statutory bodies were performing their functions, the Chief Minister intervened.
“It reflects a shocking pattern that is emerging. When the statutory body was performing its function… CM Banerjee barges in, the police commissioner comes with her and then sits on a dharna,” Mehta said.
He argued that such behavior would demoralize central agencies. “States will feel that they can barge in, commit theft and then sit on dharna. Let an example be made where the policemen who were expressly present there should be suspended,” he said and urged the court to order the relevant authorities to act.
ED seeks suspension, FIR against Mamata and CBI probe
The ED also sought the suspension of senior West Bengal Police officials, including Director General of Police Rajiv Kumar, alleging that they had assisted the Chief Minister in thwarting raids and removing evidence. The plea seeks directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Personnel and Training and recalls Kumar’s past dharna alongside Banerjee when he was the Kolkata Police Commissioner.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the facts revealed cognizable offences.
“This is a case of theft, robbery and theft. This is a simple case of theft which is fabricated,” he said, relying on the precedent in Lalita Kumari which held that registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offense is detected.
He added that since the chief minister was also the home minister of the state, any investigation by the state police would be ineffective and would require a CBI probe.
“Why start this right before the elections?”: Sibal
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress (TMC), strongly disputed the ED’s narrative and repeatedly questioned the timing of the search.
“Why was there a need to start this just before the elections. This is in your petition that the last statement was recorded in February 2024,” asked Sibal.
He said the ED waited for almost two years before conducting a search in the premises linked to the election strategy. “We all know IPAC is looking after West Bengal elections. Formal contract between TMC and IPAC in 2021,” he said, arguing that the search risks revealing confidential election data.
Sibal also disputed claims of widespread seizures. “Please look at the video recording. It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. Look at the panchnama too,” he said, adding that only Pratik Jain’s phone and laptop were seized and the search was peaceful.
Bench intervenes, tempers flare
Justice Mishra questioned the maintainability of the ED’s plea and warned lawyers against disorderly exchanges. When Mehta alleged that the premises of the Calcutta High Court had been converted into ‘Jantar Mantar’ by organized gatherings of lawyers, the Bench remarked, “Don’t make a fuss here.”
At one point, Justice Mishra remarked, “We will issue a notice. It is a very serious matter. We will look into it.”
When Sibal criticized the High Court’s proceedings, the Bench retorted sharply, “You cannot put words in my mouth. We will decide what to presume and what not.”
Allegations of I-PAC raid and coal scam
The ED told the court that its officials were conducting searches under Section 17 of the PMLA at 10 locations linked to I-PAC in connection with a multi-state money laundering case of Rs. ₹2,742 crore, allegedly linked to illegal mining and sale of coal.
Mehta alleged that Banerjee entered the premises, “seized all digital devices and three incriminating documents” and left around 12:15 pm, characterizing the episode as “pure theft”. He added that the phone of the ED constable was also taken.
Sibal countered that the panchnama contradicted these claims and accused the agency of trying to create prejudice through selective allegations.
Bengal claims forum shopping
Senior advocates AM Singhvi and Shyam Divan, appearing for the State of West Bengal and police officials, objected to what they described as forum shopping, noting that similar prayers are pending in the Calcutta High Court.
Singhvi said the ED is conducting parallel proceedings and urged the court to allow the state to file its reply before any notice is issued. “Either you are lying or your petition is lying,” he said, pointing out discrepancies between the ED pleas and the panchnama.
(Quotations used in this article are taken from Bar and Bench)
