ED Plea In Calcutta High Court Against Mamata Banerjee : Live Updates

ASG: therefore before entertaining the application the defect must be cured. That cannot be done in this case because it was a false affidavit.

The person who filed the affidavit was not concerned or present at the place of the search.

ASG: he is unconnected with the search

Court: he has never said that

ASG: therefore the person has no information…I am obliged…how can the petition be maintainable?

The person must have knowledge and can swear to the contents. He has also not stated his source.

Therefore the petition cannot be maintained.

ASG cites an unreported judgement.

ASG: the affidavit says it was true to the knowledge…that’s why I was reading out the paras, not because I want to delay the proceedings.

Nothing is from is knowledge. He must state his source.

Court: the petitioner was allowed to cure the defect while filing a supplementary affidavit in this case

ASG: I was not aware of this. So adjourn the matter

DSG to ASG: court was referring to the judgement being cited, not the present case

ASG: I’m so sorry milord

Bench: I have the writ petition sir, no need to read it.

ASG: i am only pointing out that the person who swore the affidavit while filing the writ had no knowledge of what took place.

ASG: see the affidavit by the person who filed…was he present during the seizure? False statements have been made on oath. This person who swore the affidavit was no where in the picture to file the writ petition.

ASG: I am showing that he has made a false affidavit. He had no knowledge about the search or seizure. He says this is true to his knowledge…the fact is that S.17 PMLA powers are pending before the SC.

ASG: the raid had nothing to do with the TMC. And the person who was raided by the ED has not come before your ladyship.

ASG: this was abetted by the DG of police and other officers. So unless she is made a party, this petition is not mantainable.

The petitioner is Trinamool Congress.

Counsel reads out prayers in TMC’s petition.

Bench: the petitioner is primarily on this prayer…for protection of data

ASG: the record which was seized was taken by Mamata Banerjee. She seized all device and records. Unless she is made a party, these prayers and this petition is not mantainable.

No record was taken by ED.

Counsel: 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)?

Counsel: 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.

Counsel: 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

(Counsel reads writ petition)

Counsel: 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.

Counsel: petitioner states that the respondents are known to leak data to the media. Such history makes the petitioner more apprehensive since they are engaged in sham search and seizure to take the petitioners data.

Bench to ASG: your submissions are going to th extent of disturbing the court

ASG: I am sorry milord