The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) seeking protection and preservation of confidential political data allegedly seized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during searches conducted earlier this month. The court’s decision came after the central agency informed the bench that it had not seized any documents, digital records, or data from the residence or office of Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) head Prateek Jain during the January 8 searches.

The matter, which has political and legal ramifications, revolves around claims and counterclaims between the ruling party in West Bengal and the central investigative agency. While the TMC alleged that sensitive political and organisational data had been taken during the ED’s search operations, the agency categorically denied the allegation before the high court, stating that no seizure whatsoever had taken place.

ED’s Submission Before the Court

Appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor General S C Raju told the Calcutta High Court that the agency had not seized any records from Prateek Jain’s home or office on January 8. According to him, the very foundation of the TMC’s plea was flawed because the alleged seizure never occurred.

Addressing the court, Raju argued that the relief sought by the Trinamool Congress could not be granted in the absence of any seizure by the ED. He went a step further to suggest that if any records had indeed been taken, the responsibility did not lie with the central agency.

“The prayer is for protection of data. The record was seized by Mamata Banerjee. Unless she is made a party, these prayers can’t be granted, as no record has been seized by ED but all record has been seized by Mamata Banerjee and her cohorts,” Raju told the bench, as reported by legal news platform Live Law.

This assertion marked a sharp escalation in the war of words between the ED and the ruling party, directly naming West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee in open court. The statement underscored the deep political tensions surrounding the case and highlighted the broader conflict between the central agency and the state’s ruling establishment.

Adjournment Sought Due to Supreme Court Proceedings

In addition to denying any seizure, the Enforcement Directorate requested that both its own petition and the one filed by the TMC in connection with the January 8 searches be adjourned. The agency informed the Calcutta High Court that it had already approached the Supreme Court on related issues and that the matter was now pending before the apex court.

The ED argued that parallel proceedings in the high court could lead to overlapping or conflicting directions, and therefore, it would be appropriate to await the Supreme Court’s decision. Taking note of the agency’s submissions and the circumstances of the case, the Calcutta High Court chose to dispose of the TMC’s plea.

TMC’s Stand: Seeking Data Protection

Representing the Trinamool Congress, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the court that the party’s concern was limited and specific. According to her, the TMC was not attempting to obstruct the investigation or challenge the ED’s authority, but was merely seeking protection of its confidential data.

Guruswamy maintained that political parties possess sensitive information related to strategy, internal communications, and organisational functioning, and that such data deserves protection under law. The plea, she said, was filed as a precautionary measure to ensure that any political or confidential material allegedly accessed during the searches was not misused.

Despite these submissions, the court noted the ED’s categorical stand that no seizure had taken place. In light of this assertion, and considering the agency’s move to the Supreme Court, the high court found no reason to keep the petition pending.

Background to the Controversy

The controversy stems from searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on January 8 at premises linked to Prateek Jain, the head of I-PAC. The political consultancy firm has worked closely with the Trinamool Congress in the past, particularly during election campaigns. The ED’s action immediately triggered strong reactions from the TMC, which accused the central agency of targeting political opponents and attempting to intimidate the ruling party in West Bengal.

Following the searches, the TMC approached the Calcutta High Court, alleging that confidential political data had been seized and seeking directions for its preservation and protection. The party argued that such data, if accessed or used improperly, could undermine democratic processes and political fairness.

The ED, however, has consistently rejected these claims, maintaining that its actions were carried out strictly in accordance with the law and that no material was seized from the I-PAC head’s premises.

Supreme Court to Hear ED’s Plea

Even as the Calcutta High Court disposed of the TMC’s petition, the legal battle is far from over. The Supreme Court is set to hear a separate plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the state’s Director General of Police, and the Kolkata Police Commissioner.

The ED’s move to the apex court signals a significant escalation in the confrontation between the central agency and the West Bengal government. The plea, if entertained, could have far-reaching implications for the state’s political and administrative leadership.

Political Implications

The developments come at a time when relations between the Trinamool Congress and the central government remain strained. The TMC has repeatedly accused central agencies such as the ED and the CBI of acting as instruments of political pressure, especially in states ruled by opposition parties. The BJP, on the other hand, has defended the agencies, asserting that they are independent institutions merely performing their statutory duties.

The Calcutta High Court’s decision to dispose of the TMC’s plea does not amount to a ruling on the merits of the allegations but reflects the court’s acceptance of the ED’s submission that no seizure took place. However, the sharp exchanges in court and the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court suggest that the legal and political tussle is likely to continue.

What Lies Ahead

With the Supreme Court now set to hear the ED’s plea, the focus will shift to New Delhi, where the apex court’s observations and decisions could shape the course of the dispute. For the Trinamool Congress, the matter is not only about legal safeguards but also about reinforcing its narrative of political victimisation. For the Enforcement Directorate, the case represents a test of its authority and credibility amid sustained political scrutiny.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the episode highlights the increasingly contentious interface between investigative agencies and political actors in India, raising broader questions about federalism, institutional autonomy, and the role of law enforcement in politically charged environments.