Supreme Court Flags ED’s Allegations Against Mamata Banerjee as “Serious Matter”

The Supreme Court on Thursday took up the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition alleging interference by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the state police during search operations conducted at the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) headquarters and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata on January 8, observing that the issue raised was a “serious matter.”

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the incident as a “shocking state of affairs,” alleging that the Chief Minister, accompanied by senior police officials, entered the premises while ED searches were underway and removed incriminating material linked to an alleged coal smuggling scam.

The ED has filed a fresh application before the apex court seeking the suspension of senior West Bengal police officials, including Director General of Police Rajiv Kumar. The agency alleged that the police leadership aided the Chief Minister in obstructing the searches and facilitating the removal of evidence from the I-PAC office.

During the hearing, the ED submitted that the DGP personally accompanied Mamata Banerjee to the locations being searched and that several police personnel sat on a dharna alongside political leaders protesting the ED’s actions. Mehta told the court that the searches were lawfully authorised under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and that local police had been informed in advance.

“Files were taken away by the Chief Minister. An ED officer’s mobile phone was also taken. This amounts to theft,” Mehta submitted, warning that such actions could demoralise central investigating agencies and set a dangerous precedent. “If states are allowed to barge into search operations, seize material, and then protest, it will undermine the rule of law,” he added, urging the court to set an example.

‘Mobocracy Over Democracy’

The Solicitor General further argued that the ED is a statutory authority and not a political instrument, stating that the material seized during the searches was strictly related to an ongoing investigation into an alleged illegal coal smuggling racket involving Rs 2,742 crore, with suspected hawala links.

Referring to developments at the Calcutta High Court on the day the matter was listed, Mehta claimed that chaos prevailed, turning the premises into what he described as “Jantar Mantar.” “This is what happens when mobocracy takes over democracy,” he told the court, rejecting allegations that the ED was seeking voter or electoral data.

The agency further submitted that despite requests for non-interference, the Chief Minister entered the premises while officers were briefing local police and forcibly took possession of digital devices and documents. According to the ED, Mamata Banerjee left the site around 12.15 pm. The agency also pointed out that I-PAC had not filed any formal complaint regarding the searches.

TMC Questions Timing and Intent

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, questioned the necessity of conducting raids at the I-PAC office in the run-up to Assembly elections. He argued that I-PAC has been managing election-related activities for the Trinamool Congress (TMC) since the 2021 polls and therefore holds sensitive party data.

“When the ED went there, it knew that significant political data would be present. What was the urgency to conduct these searches in the middle of an election process?” Sibal asked, adding that the last statement in the coal smuggling case was recorded in 2024. He alleged that the ED acted with mala fide intent to access party-related information.

Sibal denied allegations that all devices were seized, stating that Mamata Banerjee had only taken Pratik Jain’s laptop containing party data and a personal iPhone. He accused the agency of overreach and politically motivated conduct.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of West Bengal and the DGP, challenged the maintainability of the ED’s petition, arguing that such reliefs are permissible only in exceptional circumstances where the agency is rendered entirely helpless.

The hearing also witnessed sharp exchanges between the Solicitor General and Kapil Sibal. Mehta suggested that the Chief Justice of India consider issuing guidelines restraining lawyers from discussing pending cases with the media. Sibal responded by stating that central agencies, including the ED and CBI, should likewise refrain from selectively briefing journalists.

The Supreme Court is expected to continue hearing the matter.