Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Jan 15: In a major setback to the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress government in West Bengal and the Kolkata police, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the FIRs registered against officers of the Enforcement Directorate in connection with their searches against the political consultancy I-PAC.
The bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi has also sought replies from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Department of Personnel & Training, Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress government in Bengal on the central agency’s petition seeking the suspension of Bengal’s DGP Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, among others.
The court has also sought a reply to the petition for a CBI probe for allegedly obstructing raids by Ms Banerjee and her entourage at I-PAC office and its joint-founder Pratik Jain’s residence in Kolkata last week and taking away evidence.
The court was hearing a petition by the ED over the alleged obstruction of agency’s raids in Kolkata last week on I-PAC, firm that does political consultancy for Mamata-led Trinamool Congress (TMC).
The probe agency told the court that Mamata has a “shocking pattern” of barging into premises during proceedings by statutory authorities. In the petition, the ED had sought directions to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the West Bengal government to suspend key police officers, including West Bengal DGP Rajiv Kumar, Manoj Kumar Verma, Kolkata Police Commissioner, and Priyabatra Roy, DCP South Kolkata, for allegedly interfering in the agency’s raids last week.
The top court observed that the ED’s allegation was “very serious” and agreed to examine whether a state’s law-enforcing agencies can interfere with a central agency’s probe into any serious offence. The ED earlier told the Supreme Court that Mamata Banerjee has a “shocking pattern” of barging into premises during proceedings by statutory authorities.
Rapping the Bengal government, the court said, “It is necessary to examine the issue so that offenders aren’t allowed to be protected under shield of state’s law enforcing agencies.”
The Supreme Court said it was of the prima facie view that the central agency’s petition raises a serious issue relating to investigation and interference by state agencies. The court also maintained that a central agency has no power to interfere with the election work of any party. But, if the central agencies were working bona fide to probe a serious offence, a question arises: Can they be obstructed by party activities?” the court said. The matter will be heard next on February 3.
During the hearing, the court also said there were larger questions which emerge in the ED’s plea and if not answered it shall lead to lawlessness. The court posted the ED’s plea for hearing on February 3 and directed the West Bengal police to protect CCTV footage of raids on I-PAC premises.
Dramatic events had unfolded in Kolkata last Thursday when CM Mamata Banerjee “rushed” to the residence of I-PAC’s Pratik Jain amid Ed raids as she claimed that officials attempted to “loot” her party TMC’s hard disks as well as internal documents and sensitive data. She had described the raids as “politically motivated and unconstitutional” and was seen visibly charged, dodging media persons to make her way amid noisy scenes in videos of the incident shared on social media.
“They have raided the residence of our IT chief. They were confiscating my party’s documents and hard disks, which has details about our candidates for the assembly polls. I have brought those back,” Ms Banerjee had said.
The SC ruling comes amid a face-off between the ED and the Mamata Banerjee government after the latter searched premises linked to I-PAC, which handles election campaigns for the Trinamool Congress, in connection with a corruption case.
Appearing for the central agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accused Banerjee of “theft” and said she took evidence from the residence of IPAC co-founder Pratik Jain. “This kind of act will encourage state police officers to aid and abet such cases,” he said, and demanded the suspension of top Bengal cops.
“This is mobocracy,” Mehta told the court, describing the chaos in Calcutta High Court on January 9 when a battery of lawyers not linked to the case disrupted the proceedings, leading the judge to adjourn the hearing.
The bench asked if the high court was converted into Jantar Mantar. Solicitor General Mehta said a WhatsApp message asked lawyers to come to the court at a specific time, leading to the chaos. Mehta claimed that this was not the first time that Mamata Banerjee has done this and urged the top court to settle the issue once and for all.
Appearing for Banerjee, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the need for the ED to go to Bengal ahead of the Assembly polls. “The last development in the coal scam case took place in February 2024. What were they doing there in 2026. We all know IPAC takes care of elections in West Bengal. There is a formal contract between IPC and TMC,” he said.
“Election data is confidential and it is all kept there. There will be a lot of info on candidates etc. Once you have info, how do we fight the election? Chairman (Banerjee) has the right to protect it and thus went there,” he said.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Bengal government and DGP, pointed to the Enforcement Directorate raising the issue in both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court. Referring to the chaos on January 9, he said, “Yes, you had an issue on January 9 but that cannot be an excuse to ride two different horses. Sometimes emotions go out of hand and we understand what the court is saying. Relevant test is yesterday,” he said. The bench replied, “Emotions cannot go out of hand repeatedly.”
Issuing notice, the court said, “Prima facie view that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and its interference by state agencies.”
It added, “For adherence to rule of law in the country and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of law-enforcing agencies of a particular state. According to us, larger questions have been raised and are involved in the present matter, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation, and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state considering that different outfits are governing the different places.”