ED–West Bengal Confrontation Over I-PAC Raids Reaches Supreme Court

Background: Centre–State Clash Escalates to the Apex Court

The long-running confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC)–led West Bengal government has now reached the Supreme Court of India, marking a significant escalation in a politically sensitive dispute ahead of state elections.

The ED has approached the apex court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that its lawful investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was deliberately obstructed by the West Bengal state machinery, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.


ED’s Allegations: “Unprecedented Interference” in Central Investigation

According to the ED’s petition, the controversy stems from search operations conducted on Thursday at multiple locations linked to political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), including:

  • The Kolkata office of I-PAC in Salt Lake

  • The residence of I-PAC director Pratik Jain in central Kolkata

  • Other premises in Delhi and West Bengal, totalling 10 locations

The searches were part of a money laundering probe linked to alleged coal smuggling kingpin Anup Majee, in which the ED claims proceeds of crime worth nearly ₹10 crore were routed to I-PAC through hawala channels.

The ED has alleged that:

  • Mamata Banerjee entered the search premises along with senior state officials

  • Key physical documents and electronic devices were forcibly removed

  • Local police presence made it impossible for ED officers to continue the search independently

  • The integrity of the investigation was irreversibly compromised

Terming the incident a “showdown”, the ED has argued that state police cannot be trusted to investigate actions involving the chief minister, and has sought either:

  • A CBI-led probe, or

  • An independent court-monitored investigation


State Government’s Response: Caveat Filed in Supreme Court

Anticipating ED’s move, the West Bengal government filed a caveat before the Supreme Court on Saturday, seeking an assurance that no interim order be passed without hearing the state.

A caveat, under Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, is a procedural safeguard ensuring audi alteram partem (right to be heard), particularly in cases involving urgent relief.

ED is expected to urgently mention the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday (January 12), citing apprehensions of evidence destruction or tampering.


Parallel Proceedings Before the Calcutta High Court

Before approaching the Supreme Court, the ED had moved the Calcutta High Court, seeking registration of an FIR against Mamata Banerjee for:

  • Obstructing lawful search operations

  • Interfering with a central agency’s functioning

However, proceedings before both a single judge and a division bench led by the Acting Chief Justice were deferred until January 14.

In response:

  • TMC and I-PAC filed counter-petitions, denying all allegations

  • They claimed the seized material pertained solely to election strategy and campaign planning

  • They argued such documents fall outside the scope of “proceeds of crime” under PMLA


Kolkata Police FIRs Against ED Officials

Following complaints by Pratik Jain’s family alleging theft of documents, the Kolkata Police registered FIRs against unidentified ED and CRPF personnel under:

  • Sections relating to criminal trespass and theft

  • Provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000

The police claim:

  • Searches were conducted without proper intimation

  • ED officials failed to show valid warrants

  • Local police were obstructed in discharging their duties

The ED has categorically denied these allegations, asserting that all actions were conducted strictly in accordance with law and judicial authorisation.


Political Fallout: Street Protests and Public Accusations

The confrontation spilled onto the streets when Mamata Banerjee led a protest march in south Kolkata, accompanied by prominent film personalities.

Addressing the gathering, Banerjee accused the BJP-led Union government of weaponising central agencies to:

  • “Steal” TMC’s election strategy

  • Illegally access confidential political data

She publicly defended her presence at the raid sites, stating that she intervened only to protect her party’s confidential documents, denying any wrongdoing.


Statutory Framework Involved

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

  • Section 17 – Power of search and seizure

  • Section 19 – Power to arrest

  • Section 44 – Offences triable by Special Court

The ED’s case hinges on whether election consultancy payments allegedly routed through hawala channels constitute “proceeds of crime” under PMLA.

Code of Criminal Procedure

  • Obligations relating to search procedure, warrants, and police cooperation

Information Technology Act, 2000

  • Invoked by state police in FIRs alleging illegal access and data theft


Constitutional Provisions Implicated

  • Article 32 – ED’s writ petition invoking Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction

  • Article 131 – Though not directly invoked, the dispute reflects a Centre–State conflict

  • Article 21 – Due process and personal liberty concerns raised by both sides

  • Article 355 – Duty of the Union to ensure governance in accordance with the Constitution


Relevant Judicial Precedents

  • State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010)
    Supreme Court upheld the power of constitutional courts to direct CBI probes without state consent in exceptional circumstances.

  • Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
    Established the principle of independence of investigative agencies from political interference.

  • P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)
    Clarified ED’s powers under PMLA but stressed procedural fairness and judicial oversight.

  • Union of India v. T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (2012)
    Reiterated that obstruction of lawful investigation undermines rule of law.


Conclusion: A Test Case for Federalism and Agency Autonomy

The ED–West Bengal standoff is no longer merely an investigative dispute; it has become a constitutional test of federal balance, investigative autonomy, and political accountability.

With parallel proceedings in the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, the outcome will likely have far-reaching implications on:

  • The scope of central agencies’ powers

  • Limits of state executive intervention

  • Judicial oversight in politically sensitive investigations

As elections approach, the legal battle is poised to shape not just the future of this probe, but also the contours of Centre–State relations in India.


Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse