New Delhi: A high-stakes legal showdown unfolded on Thursday as the Supreme Court heard the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition alleging interference by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during raids on I-PAC premises in Kolkata. The apex court stayed FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officers and sought counter-affidavits, underscoring the gravity of alleged obstruction and raising broader questions on the autonomy of central investigative agencies.

ED Raises Allegations of Obstruction

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, told the Supreme Court that Mamata Banerjee’s actions demonstrated “a very shocking pattern emerging,” claiming that she routinely intervenes when statutory authorities exercise their powers. According to Mehta, during last week’s raids, the Chief Minister was accompanied by senior police officials, and the ED alleged that officers associated with her engaged in protests, including sitting on dharnas alongside political leaders and obstructing investigations.

Mehta also cited previous incidents, including alleged harassment of a Joint Director at the CBI, where stones were reportedly pelted during protests. He described the “commotion” in the Calcutta High Court last Friday as deeply troubling, noting that the hearing had to be adjourned due to what he characterized as mob-like interference. The Solicitor General told the apex court, “This happens when mobocracy replaces democracy,” prompting the Supreme Court to remark that it was “very much disturbed with incidents in Calcutta High Court.”

The ED petition sought directions from the Supreme Court to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the West Bengal government to suspend key police officers, including West Bengal DGP Rajiv Kumar, Manoj Kumar Verma, Kolkata Police Commissioner, and Priyabatra Roy, DCP South Kolkata, for allegedly interfering with the agency’s lawful raids.

West Bengal Government Denies Interference

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, countered the ED’s claims by asserting that Mamata Banerjee did not obstruct the searches. According to Sibal, the Chief Minister’s intervention was limited to collecting the laptop and personal iPhone of I-PAC chief Pratik Jain, which contained party information. He argued that no seizure had taken place at the time of her visit and labeled the ED’s actions as “completely malafide,” asserting that the agency aimed to gather as much data as possible from a political party office in the midst of elections.

Sibal also questioned the timing of the ED raids, noting that the last statement in the case ED cited was recorded in February 2024. He asked why the agency waited nearly two years to act and why the raids were conducted so close to West Bengal’s upcoming polls. “Why was there a need to go there in the midst of an election? How will we fight elections if this data is seized?” Sibal said, raising concerns about the potential impact on the electoral process.

Supreme Court’s Interim Orders

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi, directed that the CCTV footage from the searched premises be preserved. Notices were issued to the respondents, and the stay on FIRs will remain in effect until the next hearing on February 3. The apex court emphasized the seriousness of the case, noting that the matter raises far-reaching issues about the independence of central investigative agencies and their ability to conduct probes without interference from state authorities.

High Drama in Kolkata

The backdrop to the legal proceedings was a dramatic scene in Kolkata last week when Mamata Banerjee rushed to the residence of I-PAC head Pratik Jain amid the ED raids. She claimed that officials attempted to “loot” her party’s hard disks and sensitive internal documents. Visuals from the event showed the Chief Minister jostling through crowds and police personnel while holding documents, generating intense media coverage and public attention.

The ED also conducted searches at the I-PAC office, which handles political consultancy, IT, and media work for the Trinamool Congress (TMC). According to the agency, the searches were linked to a money laundering investigation, further intensifying the political and legal stakes of the case.

Legal and Political Implications

The case has ignited debate over the balance between central probe agencies’ authority and the powers of state governments. Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s decision on preserving evidence and staying FIRs may set important precedents for handling alleged obstruction of statutory investigations, especially in politically sensitive contexts.

The contrasting narratives presented by the ED and the West Bengal government highlight the highly charged political environment in which these raids are taking place. While the ED argues that the Chief Minister’s interventions reflect a troubling pattern of interference, the state contends that the agency’s actions were timed to exert pressure on a political party during elections.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court will review counter-affidavits and hear further arguments in the matter on February 3. In the interim, the stay on FIRs ensures that no immediate legal action can be taken against the ED officers, while preserving the integrity of the ongoing investigation and associated evidence.

The ED vs Mamata Banerjee faceoff in the Supreme Court underscores the tense interface between law enforcement, politics, and governance in India, with outcomes likely to influence how central agencies operate in states governed by political opponents.