‘Why…just before elections?’: In SC, Mamata Banerjee flags timing of raid on I-PAC office; ED seeks FIR

ED versus Mamata Banerjee in Supreme Court: On Thursday, 15 January, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee and Trinamool Congress (TMC), asked, “Why was the need to start this just before elections. This is in your petition that the last statement was recorded in February 2024”, during the Supreme Court hearing on plea by Enforcement Directorate accusing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State officials of interfering with the central agency's investigation and search operations at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder, Pratik Jain.

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard sharply contested arguments between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over alleged interference in the central agency’s search operations at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioning the timing of the raid on the eve of elections. The court described the matter as “very serious” and indicated it would examine the allegations in detail.

ED alleges ‘shocking pattern’ of obstruction

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi that the agency’s plea reflected “a very shocking pattern”, alleging that whenever statutory authorities discharged their functions, the chief minister intervened.

“It reflects a shocking pattern emerging. When a statutory authority was discharging its function … the CM Banerjee barges in, the Commissioner of police comes with her and then sits on dharna,” Mehta submitted.

He argued that such conduct would demoralise central agencies. “The states will feel they can barge in, commit theft and then sit on a dharna. Let an example be set where officers who were explicitly present there should be suspended,” he said, urging the court to direct competent authorities to act.

ED seeks suspension, FIR against Mamata, and CBI probe

The ED has also sought suspension of senior West Bengal Police officials, including Director General of Police Rajiv Kumar, alleging they aided the chief minister in obstructing raids and removal of evidence. The plea seeks directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Personnel and Training, recalling Kumar’s past dharna alongside Banerjee when he was Kolkata Police Commissioner.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that the facts disclosed cognisable offences.

“This is a case of theft, robbery and dacoity. This is a simple case of theft which is made out,” he said, relying on the precedent in Lalita Kumari to submit that registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognisable offence is disclosed.

He added that since the chief minister was also the state’s home minister, any probe by the state police would be ineffective, necessitating a CBI investigation.

‘Why start this just before elections?’: Sibal

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress (TMC), strongly challenged the ED’s narrative, repeatedly questioning the timing of the search.

“Why was the need to start this just before elections. This is in your petition that the last statement was recorded in February 2024,” Sibal asked.

He said the ED had waited nearly two years before conducting a search at premises linked to election strategy. “IPAC we all know that it takes care of elections in West Bengal. Formal contract between TMC and IPAC in 2021,” he submitted, arguing that the search risked exposing confidential electoral data.

Sibal also disputed claims of large-scale seizure. “Please see the video recording. It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. See that panchnama also,” he said, adding that only Pratik Jain’s phone and laptop were seized and that the search was conducted peacefully.

Bench intervenes, tempers flare

Justice Mishra questioned the maintainability of the ED’s plea and cautioned counsel against disorderly exchanges. When Mehta alleged that the Calcutta High Court premises had been turned into “Jantar Mantar” by orchestrated gatherings of lawyers, the Bench observed: “Don’t create ruckus here.”

At one point, Justice Mishra remarked, “We will issue notice. This is a very serious matter. We will examine this.”

When Sibal criticised the High Court proceedings, the Bench responded firmly: “You cannot put words in my mouth. We will decide what to assume and what not to.”

Allegations over I-PAC raid and coal scam probe

The ED told the court that its officers were conducting searches under Section 17 of the PMLA at 10 locations linked to I-PAC in connection with a multi-state money laundering case amounting to ₹2,742 crore, allegedly linked to illegal coal mining and sale.

Mehta claimed that Banerjee entered the premises, “took possession of all digital devices and three incriminating documents”, and left around 12.15 pm, characterising the episode as “pure theft.” He added that the ED officer’s phone was also taken.

Sibal countered that the panchnama contradicted these assertions and accused the agency of attempting to create prejudice through selective allegations.

Bengal alleges forum shopping

Senior advocates AM Singhvi and Shyam Divan, appearing for the State of West Bengal and police officials, objected to what they described as forum shopping, noting that similar prayers were pending before the Calcutta High Court.

Singhvi said the ED was pursuing parallel proceedings and urged the court to allow the state to file a response before any notice was issued. “Either you are lying or your petition is lying,” he said, pointing to discrepancies between the ED’s pleadings and the panchnama.

(The quotes used in this article are taken from Bar and Bench)