ED v. Mamata Banerjee Over I-PAC Raid : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing

ASG: FIR is 'mandatory' if cognizable offense made out. Averments by informant have to be seen. Ordinarily, I have to go to local area where incident has occurred. But this case is different. Here, CM is an accused. She's the person who has committed theft. In presence of Police Commissioner, DGP. Head of police accomplice. No FIR registered in state regarding this could be investigated [fairly]. CBI investigation has to be ordered.

ASG Raju: Recording of CBI FIR requires only prima facie case of a cognizable offense. No inquiry required. Accused is not heard. We made them respondents by way of abundant caution. Issue is – has a cognizable offense taken place? On admitted averments, offense of threat, robbery, dacoity made out…some policemen were armed. There was wrongful restraint. 

Singhvi: Something happened on 9th, but that should not mean...relevant test is yesterday

J Mishra: Today it's this HC, tomorrow it can be another...it should not happen

Singhvi: Yesterday, everybody was in Court. Nothing untoward happened. Why on earth ED having filed petitions before both HC and SC should it tell HC not to hear because SC petition is coming up? HC adjourned because of it

Singhvi refers to panchnama: Either panchnama is lying, or ED petition is lying. SG Mehta said we were informed. First and only intimation came from a casual email

SG: Email can't be casual or non-casual.

Sibal: If there's an offense, it has to be reported to the state. How can all this happen in an Art 32 petition?

J Mishra: It has happened there, not in a writ petition

Sibal: They can't ask for investigation in a writ, they have to ask the state to probe. Why should the HC not hear the matter? It's not disabled to hear this.

SG: My objection to matters of arguments being debated elsewhere is not only qua Mr. Sibal...it's against others also...

Sibal: My ld. friend should have no objection as he knows that's not the law. Judgment is a public property, it can be discussed.

SG: There's narrative building

Singhvi (for state and DGP): We have serious objection to maintainability of this petition. If notice is issued, it should be made clear that it's subject to our maintainability objection. ED walk-in allowed only in exceptional circumstances - where it is virtually remediless. I object to forum shopping also. Identical prayers before HC - broadly.

J Mishra: There's some circular issued by CJI that should apply...[on limitation of time for counsels to argue]

SG: There should also be a circular restraining [media interview on such matters]

Sibal: Then there should be a circular that CBI and ED should not be leaking information to journalists of their liking!

Sibal: In 2024, ED was doing nothing

J Mishra: In a lighter vein, ld. SG is saying, if money is laundered during elections, what is their fault?

SG: There is no election in WB

Sibal: If this is the knowledge of the SG...

J Mishra: It's yet to be notified - is what he is saying

Sibal: Then he can say that

SG: She showed in media that documents etc. we have taken.

J Mishra: Your claim is contrary. if they had intention to collect, they would have seized, but nothing seized.

Sibal: They could photograph it, did not have to seize it. Panchnama indicates nothing untoward happened at IPAC office or Prateek Jain's premise.

J Mishra: We have to examine.

Sibal: No no, let us demonstrate.

J Mishra: You can't restrain us from issuing notice!

Sibal: We can only convince.

Sibal: Allegation that the CM took all devices is a lie. It is substantiated by their own panchnama. This is just to create prejudice.

Sibal takes the court through the panchnama.

Sibal: Till 12.05, no seizure took place. Laptop of Prateek Jain would have all information about election. She took laptop and personal Iphone. That's all. There was no obstruction. This is signed by ED. Averment of petition is contrary to panchnama! IPAC has party material, which is why ED went there. Completely malafide act by ED to gather as much material as they can.

Sibal: IPAC takes care of elections in WB. A formal contract entered by party with IPAC in 2021. We assume ED knows about it

J Mishra: Elections in WB conducted by IPAC or Election Commission?

Sibal: Series of data kept with IPAC. When they went there, they knew lot of data of party will be there. why was the need to go there in the midst of an election? Last statement in coal scam recorded on 24.02.2024. What were they doing since then? Why so keen in midst of elections? If you get hold of the information, how will we fight the elections? Chairman had right to go. Lies will be demonstrated if we show the video. We are also extremely disturbed. Why should ED go to a part of party office which has all information?

Sibal refers to S.105 of BNSS.

J Mishra: What are these photos you have filed?

SG: Of dharna, surrounded by police officers. Who should not have been there

J Mishra: Some photos are colored, some black and white.

Sibal: In a lighter vein, some truth is colored, some is in black and white

J Mishra: Very serious matter, we will issue notice. We have to examine

Sibal: Let me first clear the air. Everyone knows IPAC. If HC can hear, why should your lordships

J Mishra: We are disturbed by the way HC has been...

Sibal: That will not be repeated. Yesterday hearing took place. If this court hears this, you will have to assume HC cannot

J Mishra: Don't put words in our mouth, don't assume.

Sibal: This should be heard by HC. It has art 226 jurisdiction. That's the hierarchy. They are filing parallel proceedings.

Sr adv Dr Singhvi: Without any ruckus, ED sought adjournment yesterday.