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

Report can be read here :

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

J Mishra: In view of S. 67, if they [ED officers] were armed with authorization letter, they were acting in good faith. Both parties have raised so much arguments, it's necessary for us to record. Otherwise, everybody will say court has not recorded. We indicated in the beginning we were inclined to issue notice.

SG mentions some application for direction to Chief Secretary

Singhvi and Sibal object: Those are not even listed today

Order: Let counter to petitioner's IA be also filed

Singhvi seeks more time to file reply to main petition saying everything has been virtually stayed. Court declines.

Order: Issue notice. Counter affidavit be filed in 2 weeks. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the respondents shall preserve CCTV cameras and other storage devices containing the footage of both the premises searched on 8th. It is also directed that other proceedings and investigation relating to [ED officers] shall remain stayed till next date

Singhvi: Normally your lordships don't stay investigation. No coercive steps direction is another option.

Order: According to us, adherence of rule of law in the country and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of law enforcing agencies of a particular state. According to us, larger questions are involved and have been raised, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in 1 or the other state considering that different outfits are governing at different places. True it is that any central agency has no power to interfere with election work of any party, but at the same time, if central agencies are acting bona fide to investigate any serious offense, question arises as to whether taking shield of party activity agencies can be restricted from carrying out power?

Order: Mr Singhvi would submit that CM is Z+ protected ...therefore it was duty of DGP to accompany her when she entered the premises.

Sh. Shyam Diwan would argue that it is factually correct that some untoward incident happened on 9th january, but thereafter, on 14th, matter proceeded peacefully but was adjourned at request of ED. Therefore, this court should wait for HC to determine issues.

Having heard ld. counsels, we are of the prima facie view that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by ED or other central agencies, and its interference by state agencies.

Order: Ld. SG would submit that present is a serious matter which needs to be examined by this court and secondly, HC is not allowed to proceed further. According to him, since high police officials of state govt are involved, it would be apt. for this court to examine the issue in larger interest of justice. Ld. ASG would submit that recording of FIR in a cognizable offense is mandatory in view of law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari. According to him, when Hon'ble CM and DGP are involved, it cannot be expected that police officers subordinate to them would conduct investigation in a fair manner. he submits that in present case, offense by respondents should be investigated by CBI.

Sh. Sibal (for CM) and Sh. Singhvi (for state and its officers) would submit that petitions are not maintainable. They would submit that there's pattern of investigation at time of elections. They submit matter is pending before HC, therefore, these petitions may not be entertained. Relying on panchnama etc., it is pointed out that nothing material was recovered during search. It is also argued that local police officials were not informed by ED before initiating the search in the morning of 8.1.26. Sh Sibal would particularly submit that CM had not gone to place of incident in capacity of CM, but she being chairman of TMC, had gone there on information that certain unauthorized persons had entered into premises of Sh. Jain, who had been entrusted with party's election work. According to Mr Sibal, there was nothing available in IPAC office except some election related documents, with which ED has no concern and therefore it should not have entered the premises.

Order: According to him, ED was investigating scam of Rs. 2742.32 crores since 2020 and in course of investigation, intelligence was received about proceeds of crime from calcutta to goa through kantilal firm, which has eventually challenged into I-PAC's operational framework...Armed with authorization to carry out search and seizure proceedings at residential premises of Mr Prateek Jain of IPAC, the officers visited his premises (amongst other premises) on 8.1.26 and when search was going on, Deputy Commissioner of Police Kolkata and [...] entered the premises...thereafter, sitting Hon'ble CM also entered premises, despite categorical requests to not interfere with searches under PMLA.

He submits that this is not a singular incident where the CM has entered premises. On earlier occasion, when CBI was investigating an offense, a similar event happened, therefore there's pattern of interference with investigation by central agencies. According to him, material collected by ED officers were taken away by respondents in illegal manner. Thereafter, WB police has registered FIR against ED officers. Ld. SG submits that in such situation, it is difficult for central agencies to carry on investigation which has connection with a huge scam. He submits that ED has preferred petition before HC, but on 9th, legal cell of TMC sent message to its members on whatsapp calling them to assemble in the court. Thereafter, what happened was recorded by the ld. judge in the order.

ASG: No prosecution shall lie against a govt officer discharging duty in good faith...search proceedings were under good faith...this is to put pressure on us. I have prayed for stay

SG: We are praying for stay of FIRs against us...they [state policy] are constantly filing new FIRs. We have restricted our prayer to this incident. CCTV of both searches should also be preserved. No deletions be made. Can be kept with RG of this court.

Order: In the first writ petition, petitioners are ED and its Deputy Director. In second, petitioners are ED officers who had gone to the subject premises in course of investigation conducted by ED. Ld. ASG for petitioners would draw our attention to the series of events which has led to filing of the present writ petition.

Hearing begins

SG: Officers are also before this Court, for protection of their Art 21 rights. As FIRs registered against them

ASG Raju: Please see Art 226(4) of the Constitution. There have been cases where this Court has transferred cases to CBI under Art 32. In a given case, your lordships may come to conclusion that not only CBI investigation is warranted, but also that investigation should be outside state. 4 FIRs have been lodged against ED officers here.

ASG cites certain judgments supporting registration of FIR

ASG: I can come here directly. No need to go before High Court

J Mishra: Why can't you continue before High Court? Answer post-lunch

Bench to assemble after lunch break.