ED vs Mamata: Supreme Court Stays Kolkata Police FIRs Against ED Officials Till February 3, Seeks Responses From Bengal Govt

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday stepped into the escalating confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate and the West Bengal government, ordering a stay on all FIRs registered by the Kolkata Police against ED officials until February 3. A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi issued notices to multiple respondents, including the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal DGP Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and South Kolkata Deputy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy. All respondents have been asked to file their replies by February 3, the date fixed for the next hearing.

The intervention came on a writ petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a court-monitored, CBI-led probe into alleged obstruction of its official duties during searches conducted earlier this month in Kolkata. The agency has also filed a fresh plea seeking action against senior state police officials, including the DGP and the city police commissioner.

The controversy traces back to ED raids carried out on January 8 at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain. The ED has alleged that during the operation, state authorities interfered with the search process, resulting in the removal of crucial documents and electronic devices. Following the raids, multiple FIRs were registered by the Kolkata Police against ED officials. One of these complaints was lodged by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee herself at Shakespeare Sarani Police Station, alleging that unknown persons posing as ED officers had forcibly entered Jain’s residence with a “malafide intention” to steal internal documents related to her party.

Supreme Court’s observations
While agreeing to hear the matter, the Bench made strong prima facie observations on the larger institutional conflict between central and state agencies. “We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition raises serious issues relating to investigation by the ED or other central agencies and interference by State agencies,” the court observed.
The judges noted that for the “furtherance of the rule of law” and to ensure that each constitutional authority functions independently, the matter required close examination. The Bench cautioned that unresolved conflicts of this nature could lead to a situation of “lawlessness” across states governed by different political parties. At the same time, the court clarified that central agencies cannot interfere with legitimate political or election-related activities. However, it posed a critical question: if a central agency is bona fide investigating a serious offence, can it be restrained “under the guise of party activities”?

What The Bench Said
"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 necessary 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 involved 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 different 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.

Apart from staying all FIRs filed against the ED by Kolkata Police until February 3, the Supreme Court also directed the preservation of all relevant evidence linked to the searches. This includes CCTV footage from the I-PAC premises, surrounding areas, and any electronic devices containing recordings related to the incident. The respondents have been given two weeks to submit their counter-affidavits.​