Supreme Court Issues Notice on ED’s I-PAC Plea Against Mamata Banerjee, Flags Rule of Law Concerns

The Bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the matter raised “larger questions” concerning the independence of investigations by central agencies and possible interference by state authorities, warranting examination by the top court.

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 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 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.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the admitted facts disclosed cognisable offences and justified registration of an FIR and a CBI probe. He submitted that when the Chief Minister and top police officials were allegedly involved, it could not be expected that a fair investigation would be conducted by the state police.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for respondents, 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.

Sibal contended that the Chief Minister had gone to the premises not in her official capacity but as Chairperson of the Trinamool Congress, after being informed that unidentified persons had entered a premises handling the party’s election-related data. He asserted that the ED’s own panchnama contradicted its allegations and showed that no seizure had taken place. “Either the panchnama is lying, or the ED petition is lying,” Singhvi argued.

The State also questioned the timing of the search, alleging that it was conducted in the midst of the election season to gain access to sensitive party data. It was argued that if any offence was made out, the ED should pursue remedies before the High Court under Article 226 rather than invoking Article 32 directly.

The Bench, however, 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 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 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 observed, while clarifying that central agencies have no authority to interfere with legitimate election work of political parties.

The matter will be heard further after responses are filed, on February 3.