Calcutta High Court Disposes Of TMC Plea After ED Says It Hasn't Seized Anything From I-PAC Office

After the Enforcement Directorate(ED) told the Calcutta High Court that it has not seized anything from the office of the I-PAC and Prateek Jain on January 8, the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday disposed of Trinamool Congress's plea seeking preservation of confidential political data which has been allegedly seized by the central agency. 

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju submitted before Justice Suvra Ghosh that nothing has been seized by the ED, and that it was Mamata Banerjee who took away the files and devices. Justice Ghosh also noted that the panchnama demonstrated that no seizure was effected from the offices of I-PAC or its director, Prateek Jain, on January 8. "In view of such submissions, nothing remains to be dealt with and the application is disposed of," the bench stated, disposing of the petition of Trinamool Congress.

At the same time, the petition filed by the ED, alleging obstruction of its investigation by Mamata Banerjee, was adjourned at the request of the ASG, who said that the agency has filed a similar petition in the Supreme Court as well.

The issue relates to the raid done by the ED at the office of the I-PAC, the election strategist of the Trinamool Congress, last week in connection with the coal scam money laundering. During the raid, Mamata Banerjee rushed to the site and allegedly took away files and devices. Later, the ED approached the High Court alleging that Mamata Banerjee obstructed its investigation. The TMC also filed a petition claiming that its confidential data has been taken away. Both these matters were listed today.

At the outset of today's hearing, ASV Raju sought adjournment of the hearing on the ground that a similar petition is pending in the Supreme Court. ASG SV Raju said, "We have filed two matters before the SC wherein we have made same prayers...let the matter be adjourned. The SC will hear it. Let it be adjourned to a short date".

However, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, for the TMC, insisted that the TMC's petition must be heard. The ASG opposed this plea, saying that both matters are "inter-mingled."

Guruswamy said, "We don't know what the ED has filed before the Supreme Court. We (TMC) want our political data to be safeguarded. In Puttaswamy, the right of privacy was protected. We are not before the SC on caveat. We request that our data be protected and not used against us".

At this stage, counsel appearing for the Union while opposing TMC's petition, said, "If the election process of 2026 has been impacted, then the ECI must be made party. The petitioner had not received any intimation from the respondent over the seizure of any documents or data". 

"Where is the fundamental right being infringed for the writ petition to be maintainable? It is claimed that the petitioners election related data is being stolen by the respondent. Entire writ is based on election issue. Doesn't talk about any fundamental right. If the data is present at the IPAC office how is it related to the petitioners (TMC)? The person from whose house the data is seized should come forward. He should say it doesn't abide by the PMLA. But he didn't come forward. Was only impleaded as proforma respondent," Union's counsel said. 

Supplementing the Union's arguments ASG Raju said, "The prayer is for protection of data. The record was seized by Mamata Banerjee. Unless she is made a party, these prayers can't be granted, as no record has been seized by ED, but all record has been seized by Mamata Banerjee and her cohorts." 

He questioned how the person who filed the petition on TMC's behalf became acquainted with the facts of the matter.

"Was he present when the material was seized? No. It is not his case. False statements have been made on oath. This person who swore the affidavit was nowhere in the picture to file the writ petition," Raju said. 

"The raid had nothing to do with the TMC. The person whose premises have been raided has not come to court...how has this come to the petitioner's knowledge, there is not a whisper," Raju said. 

He said that the petitioner must state his source, as nothing about the raid was in his knowledge. 

"How can a third person who has not seen anything not done anything file this? The person unconnected to incident who has no knowledge...he does not even say that he received information from some source...Person who files petition must be one who is able to swear to the correctness of facts stated in petition...either in his knowledge, or it must be derived from some source. That is why petition is not maintainable on the face of it. The petition by a person who does not know what happened, has not relied on source therefore. On this limited ground, this petition is required to be rejected," Raju said, opposing the TMC's plea.

He also said that the petition suffers from vagueness and must be dismissed at the threshold. As Raju began arguing on the power to seize, which he said flows from Section 17 PMLA, the Court orally asked him not to make these submissions on merits and restrict the submissions on the maintainability of the petition. 

"The prayer against us for preservation of data is not maintainable as we have not seized anything," Raju said. 

He said that there are various matters on issue of ED's power to seize documents pending before the Supreme Court, and judicial propriety requires that the High Court may not hear the matter.

Guruswamy submitted that the ASG's statement that nothing was seized by the ED be recorded. She said that she was seeking protection of personal data of the political party. 

"It is a well founded fear we had and that is why we came to court. The authorization letter, was given by national working committee member (of the party). The person who signed affidavit is a member of the party. We find that it is suspect our political strategist's office was targeted before the elections...If Mr Raju says nothing had been seized that may be recorded and my petition may be disposed of on those terms that nothing was seized," Guruswamy said. 

Raju thereafter again said, "I have stated that nothing was seized, and thus their plea may be disposed of. Nothing has been seized. Whatever was taken was taken away by Mamata Banerjee".

Noting the submission of the ED, the Curt disposed of TMC's plea. 

At the last hearing, the court adjourned the matter after it was unable to hear the parties due to large-scale commotion in the courtroom.

Later, the ED approached the Supreme Court seeking action against Banerjee for her alleged interference during the raids.

Case title: ALL INDIA TRINAMOOL CONGRESS v/s UNION OF INDIA AND ORS and connected matter

WPA/602/2026