I-Pac Raids: Supreme Court Adjourns ED’s Plea Against Mamata Banerjee to Feb 10

The ED has sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Mamata Banerjee and West Bengal police officers, alleging that the Chief Minister, accompanied by senior police officials, entered the premises during a lawful search under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and forcibly took away digital devices and documents.

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had described the incident as part of a “shocking pattern” where the Chief Minister allegedly obstructed statutory authorities in the discharge of their duties. He claimed that during the January 8 search linked to the alleged coal scam, the CM, along with the Director General of Police and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, entered the premises despite being requested not to interfere.

“This is an offence of theft,” Mehta alleged, claiming that incriminating material and even an ED official’s mobile phone were taken away. He warned that such conduct would demoralise officers and discourage them from discharging their statutory functions. The SG also referred to previous instances, including alleged obstruction of CBI investigations and gheraos of officers, to argue that there was a consistent pattern of interference. The ED had further contended that multiple FIRs had been registered against its officers following the incident, including FIRs leading to the removal of CCTV footage, and sought protection for its officers, citing threats to their Article 21 rights.

The SG had also cautioned against podcast discussions on court judgments. The law officer has expresses concerns overs narratives being created due to such podcasts about the decisions rendered by a constitutional court. As the hearing was turning out to be lengthy one, Justice PK Mishra said, "There was a schedule by CJI about time of arguments", referring to the Supreme Court's recent Standard Operating Procedure for adhering to timelines for submission of oral arguments in all cases. Responding to this, SG Mehta had said, "It should also be said that lawyers cannot discuss such matters on shows".

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for respondents had strongly opposed the petitions on grounds of maintainability. They argued that the ED was indulging in forum shopping, having already approached the Calcutta High Court with similar prayers.

The bench, however had expressed concern over what it described as repeated instances of disruption affecting the functioning of constitutional courts and investigative agencies. Referring to earlier incidents recorded by the Calcutta High Court, Justice Mishra noted that such situations could not be allowed to recur.

In its order, the Supreme Court had recorded the ED’s submissions that it was investigating a scam of over ₹2,700 crore and that intelligence inputs had linked proceeds of crime to I-PAC’s operational framework. It noted the allegation that despite valid authorisation, ED officers were obstructed by senior state officials, and that material collected during the search was allegedly taken away. Taking a prima facie view, the bench had held that the petitions raised serious issues relating to the rule of law and the ability of central agencies to function independently. “If such issues are allowed to remain undecided, it may lead to a situation of lawlessness,” the court had observed, while clarifying that central agencies have no authority to interfere with legitimate election work of political parties.