"ED allowed retrieval of data, devices during I-Pac raids": Mamata Banerjee changes stance before Supreme Court

In a complete reversal of her stance, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has told the Supreme Court that Enforcement Directorate allowed her to retrieve devices and physical files during its search at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC, which works with the All India Trinamool Congress.

In an affidavit filed on behalf of Banerjee, Supreme Court has been told, "When the Answering Respondent reached both premises, she politely requested the officials of the Enforcement Directorate to be allowed to retrieve the Party’s data and the devices they were stored in and files containing prints of the same. The officers of the Enforcement Directorate present thereat did not object to this request and permitted the Answering Respondent to retrieve some of these devices and physical files. After she had done so, the Answering Respondent left the premises so as to not inconvenience the officials of the Enforcement Directorate in any way....".

This response has been filed before Supreme Court in Enforcement Directorate’s plea against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers over their obstruction of a search at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC.

The plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate alleges that its officials were obstructed while conducting a search on January 8 at the office of I-PAC, the political consultant engaged by the ruling Trinamool Congress in West Bengal. The ED has accused state authorities of interfering with the exercise of its statutory powers.

Mamata Banerjee has told the Supreme Court that she did not impede or otherwise obstruct the Enforcement Directorate in any manner. "Her presence was limited ONLY to retrieving digital devices and physical files that contained the confidential and proprietary information of the AITC. It is not the ED’s case that AITC or its officials are accused in the coal scam— as such, they cannot claim any right to the Party’s proprietary data as part of a roving and fishing enquiry", the affidavit adds.

Banerjee has further questioned ED's decision to 'conduct the so-called “search” at a time when IPAC was possessed of critical documents, including the list of proposed candidates of the Trinamool Congress for the upcoming Assembly elections, is highly suspect.'

Alleging that the search was a clandestine search, undertaken for illegal purposes, namely, theft of confidential political data, court has been told ED failed to produce any audio/video recording of the search as part of their present petition, despite being mandated to maintain the same in terms of S. 105 The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) r/w S. 65 PMLA.

"..the impugned searches do not disclose any discernible nexus with the alleged scheduled offence or with any bona fide proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The chain of events and transactions, as reflected in the record, does not reveal any material suggesting a connection, direct or indirect, between IPAC and the alleged scheduled offence or any proceeds of crime arising therefrom", court has been told.

It is also submitted that ED has failed to disclose any fact or circumstance from which the ED could have formed an opinion that Pratik Jain or IPAC was linked to proceeds of a crime emanating from the purported coal scam case.

"...there exists a discernible and recurring pattern of over-activation by the Enforcement Directorate in respect of long-dormant investigations, triggered only upon the imminent commencement of electoral processes, and exclusively directed against persons associated with political parties opposed to a particular major national political party contesting such elections. In several such cases, the investigation had been initiated years earlier and remained inactive or stagnant, with no demonstrable investigative progress for prolonged periods. Strikingly, it is only in close temporal proximity to the announcement or conduct of elections that the ED resorts to sudden and aggressive measures, including search, seizure, and arrest, targeting individuals affiliated with political parties opposed to the said major national political party in the relevant election", top court has further been told.

On January 15, the court had issued notice on petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its officers alleging interference by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state police officials during a search conducted at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director Prateek Jain. The bench had 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 apex court.

It had also directed the State of West Bengal to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic evidence relating to the premises searched on January 8, as well as footage from nearby areas, noting the relevance of such material to the adjudication of the dispute. 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.

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.

Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of West Bengal