.webp&w=3840&q=75)
The Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments questioning the timing of the Enforcement Directorate’s searches at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC, with representatives of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee alleging that the “central agency acted with political intent” by carrying out the raid just ahead of the Assembly elections after remaining inactive for nearly two years. Appearing on Banerjee’s behalf, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the delay and timing of the action were deliberate and aimed at influencing public perception.
"We are disturbed by what is happening. Why did the ED wait for two years to come to Bengal? This is just to create prejudice. The ED was already there and the Chief Minister came at 12 pm and left at 12:15 pm (on January 8)," Sibal told the bench.
Sibal further accused the ED of acting with malafide intent, asserting that the agency was fully aware that the I-PAC premises housed confidential and sensitive election-related material protected under contractual obligations. According to his submissions, the choice of location itself reflected an ulterior motive.
Expanding on this argument, Sibal told the court that the agency knowingly entered a space containing protected election data.
“They knew there was election material there, which is why they went there. They knew that office has confidential election material under a contract. This is a complete malafide act on the part of the ED,” he submitted.
Sibal also referred to the memo prepared during the search, highlighting that no documents or materials were officially seized. When the bench observed that the ED would have seized material if it intended to do so, Sibal countered that officials could still have accessed or photographed sensitive information without formally confiscating any records.
The hearing witnessed heated arguments after the ED urged the Supreme Court to consider framing guidelines to prevent lawyers from addressing the media on matters they are arguing in court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that public statements and press briefings could influence proceedings and compromise the fairness of the judicial process.
Responding sharply, Sibal argued that any such restriction should be applied uniformly, including to investigative agencies. He claimed that agencies like the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation routinely share selective details with chosen journalists, thereby shaping narratives outside the courtroom.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government and state police, informed the court that Mamata Banerjee is a Z-category protectee, mandating police presence at all times.
"Whether she is a Chief Minister or president of a party, she is a Z-class protectee," Singhvi said.
Singhvi also raised a procedural objection to the ED’s petition, arguing that the agency had already moved the Calcutta High Court on the same issue before approaching the Supreme Court.
“The prayers are identical. The ED cannot ride two horses at the same time. This is nothing but forum shopping,” he told the bench.
The court, however, observed that circumstances in such cases can evolve rapidly, noting that similar issues could arise before different High Courts. Singhvi responded that while the situation may be sensitive, procedural discipline must be respected, especially since the Calcutta High Court had heard the matter only a day earlier.
ED Demands Suspension of DGP Rajeev Kumar
Meanwhile, the ED alleged that Mamata Banerjee herself was an accused in the incident related to the I-PAC raid, accusing her of theft and claiming that state DGP Rajeev Kumar acted as an “abettor.” Arguing for the agency, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju sought suspension of Rajeev Kumar and pressed for a CBI investigation.
"Fair investigation won't happen in West Bengal since allegations are made against the Chief Minister, DGP etc," the ASG submitted, adding that no FIR had been registered despite the seriousness of the allegations. He claimed that even if an FIR were lodged by the state police, it would not inspire confidence.
During the proceedings, Justice P.K. Mishra questioned the ED on the rationale behind searching the I-PAC office and the nature of the investigation. Responding, Solicitor General Mehta said the agency was probing a multi-state money laundering case involving ₹2,742 crore, linked to the alleged illegal sale of excavated coal through a private company.
Mehta informed the court that searches were conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and were carried out simultaneously at 10 different I-PAC locations across states. When Justice Mishra asked whether the firm was the same I-PAC associated with former election strategist Prashant Kishor, Mehta confirmed that it was.
The court has taken a break and hearing will resume shortly.
