ED v. Mamata Banerjee | 'State Agencies Interfering With Central Probe Serious Issue' : Supreme Court Stays WB FIRs Against ED Officers

The Supreme Court today issued notice on the plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers, for allegedly obstructing ED's search of the office of I-PAC, the political consultant of All India Trinamool Congress.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that it was a "very serious issue" which the Court needs to examine.

"We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and its interference by State agencies. According to us, for furtherance of rule of law in the country, and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necesary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of the law enforcement agencies of a particular state. According to us, larger questions are invovled in the present manner, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different outfits are governing diffferent places. True that any central agency does not have any power to interfere with the election work of any party. But if the central agency is bona fide investigating any serious offence, the question arises whether in the guise of taking shield of party activities, agencies can be restricted from carrying out power?," the bench observed.

Notice has been issued to the State of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, WB DGP Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and South Kolkata Dy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy on the writ petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution. The ED is seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged obstruction of its functioning.

The Court asked the respondents to file the counter-affidavits within two weeks. The matter will be considered next on February 3.

The Court also directed that the respondents shall preserve the CCTV cameras and other electronic devices containing the footage of the premises searched on January 8 and the nearby areas.

The Court also stayed the further proceedings in the three FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials.

Shocking pattern in West Bengal, says ED

As soon as the matter was taken, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the case reflects a "shocking pattern." He submitted that in past also, the West Bengal Chief Minister has indulged in such acts to obstruct the functioning of central agencies.

"How is this maintainable?," Justice Mishra asked. SG said that one petition is jointly filed by the ED along with an officer who is personally aggrieved. There is another petition which has been filed by ED officers in their personal capacity, he added.

"Here, there was an evidence, leading to the conclusion that there is some incriminating material in the office of a company and the office of an individual. Officers of the ED go there in exercise of powers under Section 17 PMLA. We informed the local police also. The Hon'ble Chief Minister, along with the DGP and large contagion of police, reach there, barge into the office and take away the files and devices. In my submission, it is nothing but theft. If such conduct is condoned, it will discourage and demoralise officers," SG said.

SG informed that the ED has also moved an application to direct the suspension of the police officials who accompanied Banerjee. Referring to Section 54 of the PMLA, the SG said that the police officers are duty-bound to assist the ED; however, in the present case, the police obstructed the ED.

The Solicitor General also cited an earlier confrontation between the West Bengal Government and the Central Bureau of Investigation, when officers of the CBI were arrested by the West Bengal Police after they went to question the then Kolkata Police Commissioner, who is presently serving as the State's Director General of Police. He pointed out that during the episode, the Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had staged a dharna outside the Central Bureau of Investigation office in Kolkata.

SG stated that last week, the Calcutta High Court had to adjourn the ED's plea, after a large-scale commotion was created in the courtroom. SG said that the commotion was purposefully created by the members of the ruling party in West Bengal and said that there are WhatsApp messages from the legal wing of the party asking its members to gather. SG said that due to this fact, ahead of yesterday's hearing, the High Court had to issue a circular barring the entry of unauthorised persons into the Court room.

SG further informed the bench that the State Police have now filed three FIRs against ED officials.

"What for you went there?" Justice Mishra asked at this juncture. SG replied that it was in relation to the investigation of the coal scam money laundering case. He highlighted that I-PAC, whose premises were searched, has not filed any petition objecting to the search.

Serious matter, Court says; Mamata objects to maintainability

"This is a serious matter, we are issuing notice. We want to examine this. This is very serious," Justice PK Mishra said.  Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, submitted that he has objections to the maintainability of the matter. Sibal said that it is a matter which the High Court can also hear.

Justice Mishra then said that he was "disturbed" by the manner in which the hearing in the High Court was last week marred by commotion. Sibal then replied that the hearing took place in the High Court yesterday, and there is nothing to assume that hearings won't happen in future.

Sibal submitted that I-PAC is an election consultant of the Trinamool Congress, and there has been an agreement between them since 2021 for that purpose. Hence, the confidential data of the TMC is kept at the I-PAC office, and "I am sure the ED knows about it," Sibal said.

"The first question which arises is why was there a need to go there in the midst of an election? The last statement in coal scam was recorded in February 2024. What were they doing in 2024 and 2025, and why are they so keen in the midst of elections in 2026? If you get hold of the information, how will we fight the elections? This is why the Party Chairman (Mamata) has the right to go there. It is the property of the party," Sibal submitted.

Sibal denied the ED's claim that Mamata Banerjee took away all the files and devices, and said that if the ED produces the video evidence of the search proceedings, the claim will fall flat as an "absolute lie." He said that Mamata Banerjee only took away the laptop and iPhone containing party information.

"It is a completely mala fide exercise by the ED to disturb the election process by gathering the confidential information," Sibal said. He stated that the ED panchnamas demonstrate that nothing untoward happened both at the residence of Prateek Jain and at the office of I-PAC.

State of WB objects to maintainability

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the State and the DGP, submitted that they have serious objections to the maintainability of the Article 32 petition filed by the ED. If at all the Court is issuing notice, it should be done preserving the right of the State to raise preliminary objections.

Singhvi added that the case was an instance of "forum shopping" as the ED filed parallel proceedings both in the Supreme Court and the High Court. However, Justice PK Mishra raised concerns about the commotion created in the High Court on January 9. Singhvi said that he was also sharing the bench's concern, but added that the hearing went smoothly in the High Court yesterday. "Just because some fracas happened one day, since emotions went out of way, it cannot be presumed that all hearings will be stalled," Singhvi said.

Singhvi also said that as per the panchnama, it is recorded that the entire search was done peacefully. ASG SV Raju interjected to point out that the panchnama also records that Mamata took into possession certain materials.

In response to the SG's submission that the local police were given intimation about the search, Singhvi said that while the search operations started at 6 AM, the email communication was sent only at 11.30 AM.

Singhvi claimed that Banerjee went there after getting information that unauthorised persons were trying to access their materials. He added that the ED officials refused to identify themselves initially.  The police personnel accompanied Banerjee as she was a Z+ protected person, Singhvi added.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan , for police officers Manoj Kumar Verma and Priyabatra Roy, submitted that the ED should be relegated to the Calcutta High Court.

Case of theft and robbery committed by Mamata Banerjee : ASG

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing in the connected petition filed by ED officers, submitted that the admitted averments show that at least the offence of theft has taken place. ASG went to the extent of submitting that the offences of robbery and dacoity were committed, since there were more than five persons with weapons.

ASG sought directions for the registration of an FIR and investigation by the CBI. He also sought a stay of the FIRs registered by the State Police against the ED officials.

Background

To recap, ED filed its petition under Article 32 of the Constitution impleading the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, 

The plea followed events from earlier this month, when ED officials conducted searches 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. Yesterday, 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