ED–Mamata Banerjee Face Off in Supreme Court Over Alleged Agency “Weaponisation”

In proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, a sharp exchange took place between counsel representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and those appearing in a petition concerning West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over the search of the I-PAC office in Kolkata.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, submitted that the agency had been “terrorized” during the course of its investigation. The submission was made in response to arguments by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who contended that the agency must justify its alleged “weaponization”.

“It [ED] has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized,” the ASG stated before the Court.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 18. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that the ED is likely to file its rejoinder.

Proceedings Before the Bench
A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution against the Chief Minister and certain state police officers.

The petition alleges obstruction of a search conducted by the ED at the office of I-PAC, a political consultancy associated with the All India Trinamool Congress.

On the previous date of hearing, the Court issued notice in the matter and stayed further proceedings in three FIRs registered by the West Bengal police against ED officials. The Bench observed that a serious issue had arisen requiring examination, cautioning that failure to address it could lead to a “situation of lawlessness” in the State.

The Court also directed the State authorities to preserve CCTV cameras and other electronic devices containing footage from the premises searched on January 8 and adjoining areas.

The State of West Bengal subsequently filed a counter-affidavit challenging the maintainability of the ED’s writ petition, citing the pendency of similar proceedings before the Calcutta High Court. The State has contended that the existence of parallel proceedings before the High Court renders the Article 32 petition before the Supreme Court untenable.

The ED’s petition arises from events that transpired on January 8, when agency officials conducted searches at the I-PAC office in Kolkata in connection with a coal scam money laundering probe.

According to the ED, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the premises during the search along with senior party leaders and confronted officials. The agency has further alleged that certain files were removed from the premises during the operation, which it claims impeded the investigation.

The ED has contended that the Chief Minister’s presence at the search site and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on officers and compromised its ability to discharge statutory functions independently. It has also alleged repeated obstruction and lack of cooperation from the State administration.

In parallel developments, the West Bengal police registered an FIR against ED officials in connection with the same incident.
Through its Article 32 petition, the ED has sought directions for an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, asserting that a neutral central agency is required in view of the alleged interference by the State executive.

Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, the ED had moved the Calcutta High Court seeking protection and appropriate directions. On January 14, the High Court disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress after recording the ED’s statement that it had not seized any material from the I-PAC office or its director, Prateek Jain.​