The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over allegations of seizure of sensitive poll-related documents during a January 8 search at political strategy firm I-PAC. The court’s decision came after the ED clarified that no papers or digital devices were seized during the operation, contradicting the TMC’s claims and putting an end to the immediate legal challenge at the state level.

The single bench, presided over by Justice Suvra Ghosh, also adjourned hearings on the ED’s separate petition, which accuses West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of forcibly interfering in the agency’s operations at I-PAC and her residence. The ED has approached the Supreme Court seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, citing obstruction of justice and wrongful seizure of evidence. The top court bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi is scheduled to hear the agency’s plea on Thursday.

The controversy erupted after ED searches at I-PAC and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, were interrupted by Mamata Banerjee, who claimed the agency was seizing her party’s sensitive internal documents related to the 2026 West Bengal assembly elections. The ED, however, alleged that Banerjee and accompanying senior officials, including the chief secretary, DGP, and Kolkata police commissioner, forcibly removed files, laptops, and mobile devices that were in the process of forensic extraction, and obstructed the execution of the search under Section 17 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).

During the High Court hearing, ED’s additional solicitor general, S.V. Raju, submitted that the TMC petition was not maintainable as it was filed by Suvashis Chakraborty, who neither participated in the search nor had firsthand knowledge of the operation. ED also submitted two punchnamas (official seizure lists) demonstrating that nothing was confiscated from I-PAC, while also asserting that it was Mamata Banerjee who removed certain documents and electronic devices. The court accepted this submission, and TMC lawyers, including Menaka Guruswamy and Kalyan Banerjee, agreed to have the statement recorded, leading to the disposal of the petition.

The TMC had alleged that the ED, in an attempt to access internal election data and strategy plans, had unlawfully targeted its poll adviser and disrupted internal operations. However, the court’s scrutiny, supported by ED records, established that no evidence was seized by the agency, nullifying the basis of the petition.

ED’s larger petition pending before the Supreme Court raises more serious allegations. The agency has claimed that the Chief Minister, along with nearly 100 police personnel, stormed the premises, threatening and restraining ED officials, and thereby tampered with the integrity of the ongoing investigation. The agency described the incident as “shocking” and “unprecedented,” arguing that the interference amounted to multiple cognizable offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including theft, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, destruction of evidence, and house trespass.

The legal conflict traces back to a CBI FIR registered in November 2020, alleging illegal coal mining operations at Eastern Coalfields Ltd mines in Kunustoria and Kajora, West Bengal, and alleging financial benefits accrued to TMC leaders, including Abhishek Banerjee, through illicit channels. The ED’s search at I-PAC was part of its broader money laundering investigation linked to these allegations.

Following the January 8 events, the Kolkata Police filed suo motu cases against the ED and, based on a complaint by Mamata Banerjee, lodged separate cases under Sections 303, 332, 66, and 3(5) of BNS for alleged theft, trespassing, and IT-related offenses. ED, citing Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, has sought protection from what it terms as “malicious criminal prosecution” and requested the Supreme Court to direct a CBI investigation, arguing that approaching the state police would be ineffective given their alleged involvement.

Justice Ghosh conducted the High Court hearing behind closed doors to maintain order after a previous session on January 9 was disrupted by a crowd of lawyers. The bench allowed live streaming but barred any unrelated parties from attending. During the proceedings, objections were raised whenever TMC’s counsel attempted to argue, with the ED asserting that the Chief Minister should first be made a party to the case, as she allegedly took possession of documents that were mentioned in the petition.

The controversy has drawn widespread political attention. TMC leaders claimed that sensitive election strategy documents were at risk, while the ED emphasized that its operations were lawful and procedural, and any interference by state authorities violated federal laws. The agency’s petition argues that such actions compromised the panchnama process, which legally documents the seizure of evidence during investigations.

The Supreme Court’s impending hearing is expected to focus on several key issues:

1. Whether Mamata Banerjee and state officials unlawfully interfered with an ongoing ED operation.
2. Validation of ED’s assertion that no documents or devices were seized from I-PAC by the agency itself.
3. The necessity of a CBI investigation to ensure impartiality and prevent alleged intimidation of federal officers.
4. Clarification on jurisdictional conflicts between state police and federal agencies in money laundering and criminal investigations.

As the political and legal standoff continues, the Calcutta High Court’s dismissal of TMC’s petition underscores the agency’s claim that its actions were compliant with the law and highlights the need for adjudication by the Supreme Court for resolution of the high-stakes conflict between state leadership and a central investigative agency.

The ED has emphasized that the highest constitutional functionaries of the state allegedly obstructed justice, creating a precedent for reviewing interactions between state governments and federal investigative authorities in politically sensitive cases. The Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday will likely be pivotal in determining how federal investigative powers are exercised when state officials intervene, particularly in matters involving election-related strategies and alleged financial irregularities.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s ruling has temporarily quelled the TMC’s immediate legal challenge, but the larger dispute involving allegations of interference, removal of documents, and obstruction of federal investigation will now be decided by the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a significant legal and political showdown in West Bengal.