The Supreme Court on Thursday stepped decisively into an escalating confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate and the West Bengal government over the agency’s raids on political consultancy firm I-PAC, flagging serious concerns about alleged interference by state authorities, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in a central investigation.
Hearing a clutch of petitions arising out of the January 8 searches at I-PAC offices and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, the bench led by Justice P.K. Mishra observed that the matter raises larger questions about the rule of law and the ability of investigative agencies to function independently.
The court directed preservation of CCTV footage and other electronic storage devices linked to the search and stayed FIRs registered against ED officers until the next hearing, issuing notice to the West Bengal government to file its response within two weeks.
ED alleges obstruction, seeks top cop’s suspension
The ED has accused senior West Bengal police officials, including Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, of obstructing its searches conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The agency went so far as to seek Kumar’s suspension, claiming that state police officers, along with the Chief Minister, entered the premises while the search was ongoing, despite repeated requests by ED officials not to interfere.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the ED, told the bench that the materials collected during the search were illegally taken away, CCTV footage was removed, and FIRs were subsequently registered against ED officers, moves the agency says are designed to intimidate and derail the probe. The ED also alleged a pattern, citing earlier instances in which central agencies faced resistance while conducting investigations in the state.
The agency’s case is that it is probing a large multi-state money laundering operation linked to illegal coal mining, with proceeds allegedly routed through various entities. During this probe, the ED claims to have stumbled upon financial trails, including a Rs 20 crore transfer that eventually led investigators to the I-PAC framework.
Bengal hits back: ‘Forum shopping, election material targeted’
The West Bengal government, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, mounted a multi-pronged defence. At the threshold, it questioned the maintainability of the ED’s plea, arguing that the agency had already approached the Calcutta High Court and could not pursue identical reliefs simultaneously before the apex court, a charge Singhvi characterised as forum shopping.
On merits, Sibal contended that nothing incriminating was recovered during the January 8 search, a point he said was evident from the panchnama itself. He also argued that the ED failed to inform the local police before commencing the early-morning operation, raising questions about procedural fairness.
Crucially, Banerjee’s counsel maintained that the Chief Minister entered the I-PAC premises not in her official capacity but as chairperson of the Trinamool Congress, after receiving information that party-related election material was being removed. Sibal stressed that I-PAC houses sensitive and confidential poll data under contractual obligations and accused the ED of acting with malafide intent by targeting a space known to contain such information just ahead of elections.
Singhvi added that Banerjee is a Z-category protectee, making it mandatory for police officers, including senior officials, to accompany her wherever she goes.
Supreme Court flags wider constitutional stakes
The court noted that allegations of interference by state authorities in central investigations strike at the heart of the rule of law, particularly if offenders are shielded under the guise of political or party work.
At the same time, the bench cautioned that no investigative agency has the right to interfere in election-related activities without lawful basis, signalling that the ED’s actions, too, would be closely scrutinised.
Significantly, the court observed that the issues raised transcend the immediate controversy and, if left unresolved, could worsen the situation and potentially lead to lawlessness in one or more states, a clear reference to the delicate balance of federal power between the Union and the states.
FIRs stayed, CCTV to be preserved
As an interim measure, the Supreme Court stayed all FIRs lodged against ED officers in connection with the I-PAC raids and directed the preservation of CCTV footage and electronic records. This relief addresses the ED’s immediate concern about criminal proceedings being used as a counter-blast against its officials, while also ensuring that evidentiary material is not tampered with.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi sought an assurance that no coercive steps would be taken during the pendency of the matter, while requesting time to move an application should the stay continue. The court responded that although an interim order could have been passed swiftly, it was necessary to record all submissions in detail, given the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that the proceedings are being widely followed.
The I-PAC case has quickly become more than a dispute over a single raid. It sits at the intersection of three volatile fault lines: the expanding reach of central agencies, the autonomy of elected state governments, and the heightened political sensitivity around election-related operations.
I-PAC, founded by election strategist Prashant Kishor, has worked with multiple parties across the political spectrum, and the ED’s admission in court that this was the same organisation associated with Kishor has only added to the political resonance of the case.