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
Post a Comment