'ED Has Been Weaponised', 'No, ED Was Terrorised' : Exchange In Supreme Court Plea Against Mamata Banerjee

In ED's case against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and others over the IPAC office search, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju today submitted before the Supreme Court that the agency has been "terrorized".

The remark was a response to a submission by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra that the agency must justify its "weaponization". "It [ED] has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized", said the ASG.

The Court posted the case to March 18, noting Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that ED is likely to file its rejoinder today.

A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was dealing with the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Article 32, against CM Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers, for allegedly obstructing its search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of All India Trinamool Congress.

On the last date, the bench had issued notice on the petition and stayed further proceedings in 3 FIRs lodged by West Bengal police against ED officials. It expressed that there was a serious issue arising in the case, which required to be examined, else there would be a "situation of lawlessness" in the state. The bench also directed the state to preserve the CCTV cameras and other electronic devices containing the footage of the premises searched on January 8 and the nearby areas. 

Recently, the state filed a counter-affidavit contesting maintainability of ED's writ in view of the pendency of similar proceedings before the Calcutta High Court.

Background

The ED filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution impleading the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and others.  

The plea followed events which took place when the ED officials conducted searches on January 8 at the office of I-PAC in Kolkata in connection with the coal scam money laundering probe. During the operation, CM Mamata Banerjee allegedly reached the I-PAC office along with senior party leaders and confronted ED officials. The ED has also alleged that the Chief Minister took away certain files from the premises during the raid, which it claims further impeded the investigation.

According to the ED, the Chief Minister's presence at the search site and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on officers and seriously compromised the agency's ability to discharge its statutory functions independently. The agency has alleged repeated obstruction and non-cooperation by the state administration.

The West Bengal police has also registered an FIR against ED officers. In its Article 32 petition before the Supreme Court, the ED has sought directions for an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation, contending that a neutral central agency is necessary in view of the alleged interference by the state executive.

Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, the ED moved the Calcutta High Court in relation to the same incident, seeking protection and appropriate directions. On January 14, the High Court disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress recording the statement made by the ED that it has not seized anything from the office of I-PAC or its director Prateek Jain.

Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026