The escalating confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC)-led West Bengal government over controversial raids linked to the political consultancy firm I-PAC has reached the Supreme Court, intensifying political and legal tensions in the poll-bound state. Both parties have approached the apex court, setting the stage for a high-profile showdown that could have far-reaching implications for federal investigations and the use of central agencies during politically sensitive periods.

The ED has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court alleging deliberate obstruction by the West Bengal state machinery and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during search operations conducted on Thursday at multiple premises, including the residence of I-PAC director Pratik Jain and the firm’s Salt Lake office in Kolkata. The agency has urged the Court to either transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or appoint an independent probe, citing unprecedented interference that undermined the agency’s ability to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.

In anticipation of the ED’s petition, the West Bengal government filed a caveat in the Supreme Court on Saturday, requesting that no orders be passed without hearing the state. A caveat is a formal legal instrument intended to ensure that a concerned party is given an opportunity to be heard before any interim relief or directive is issued. According to sources familiar with the matter, the ED is expected to urgently present the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday, January 12, stressing the need for immediate judicial intervention to prevent potential destruction or tampering of evidence.

In its petition, the ED has provided a detailed chronology of the events surrounding the raids, characterizing the confrontations as a “showdown” instigated by the West Bengal government’s actions. The agency alleges that Banerjee, accompanied by senior state officials, entered the raid sites and “forcibly removed” key physical documents and electronic devices, thereby compromising the integrity of the investigation. ED contends that the involvement of local police personnel effectively rendered the searches impossible to carry out independently and fairly, leaving the agency with no choice but to seek judicial intervention.

The ED’s writ petition underscores that the agency’s constitutional mandate to conduct independent investigations has been impeded by state interference. According to the agency, the obstruction not only violates principles of federal governance but also constitutes an interference with the administration of justice. ED has emphasized that the probe cannot be entrusted to the state police due to conflicts of interest and the politically sensitive nature of the matter, urging the Court to either hand over the investigation to the CBI or designate an independent agency to ensure impartiality.

The dispute arises from ED’s searches of ten premises—six in West Bengal and four in Delhi—linked to alleged coal smuggling kingpin Anup Majee, as part of a money laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Among the premises targeted were the I-PAC office in Salt Lake and Pratik Jain’s private residence in central Kolkata. ED alleges that proceeds of crime amounting to nearly ₹10 crore were routed to I-PAC through hawala channels and that the firm received payments from the Trinamool Congress for consultancy services provided during the 2022 Goa Assembly elections. I-PAC has had a longstanding association with the TMC since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections and is reportedly handling the party’s election strategy ahead of the upcoming West Bengal polls.

The day before approaching the Supreme Court, the ED had also moved the Calcutta High Court seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for allegedly obstructing its raid operations. Proceedings before both a single judge and a division bench led by the acting Chief Justice were deferred until January 14. In parallel, the TMC and I-PAC filed counter-petitions in the high court challenging ED’s allegations. The party argued that all materials seized pertained exclusively to election planning and campaign strategy, asserting that such documents are outside the scope of PMLA investigations. The TMC accused the ED of attempting to unlawfully access sensitive political data under the guise of a money laundering probe.

Adding to the legal complexity, the family of Pratik Jain lodged complaints alleging theft of documents during the raids. ED, however, has denied these allegations, asserting that all actions were lawful and conducted in accordance with due process. Following these complaints, the Kolkata Police registered FIRs citing criminal trespass, theft, and violations under the Information Technology Act. Police have initiated investigations to identify ED officials implicated in the alleged theft, collecting CCTV footage, DVR recordings, and witness statements to corroborate the claims. Authorities have stated that notices would be issued once the accused officials are identified.

The confrontation between the ED and the state government spilled into public view on Friday, when Mamata Banerjee led a large protest march in south Kolkata. Flanked by prominent figures from the Bengali film industry, she accused the BJP-led central government of misusing federal agencies to “steal” the TMC’s election strategy. Banerjee maintained that she had acted lawfully by entering the premises linked to I-PAC, asserting that her intervention was intended solely to protect confidential political documents. “I have done no wrong. Why did you come to do chori? You were stealing my data,” she said.

The political ramifications of this legal battle are significant. West Bengal, which is preparing for state assembly elections, has become a flashpoint for discussions about the independence of central investigative agencies and the balance of power between the Centre and state governments. The ED’s allegations of obstruction, coupled with the TMC’s claims of protecting electoral strategy, have created a scenario where judicial intervention is likely to determine not just the course of the current investigation, but also set precedents regarding the extent of state involvement during federal probes.

Observers note that this dispute highlights the broader tension between central agencies and politically sensitive state governments. The ED’s reliance on the Supreme Court to seek oversight underscores its concern over potential evidence tampering, while the state’s filing of a caveat signals its intent to maintain a proactive defense. The coming hearings are expected to focus on both procedural and constitutional aspects, including the right of a federal agency to conduct an unobstructed investigation versus a state’s prerogative to safeguard sensitive political information.

With the Supreme Court poised to hear the matter on January 12, all eyes are on the apex judiciary to resolve the standoff. In the meantime, both the ED and the West Bengal government are preparing their submissions, while political tensions continue to simmer ahead of the elections. How the Court balances the principles of federal oversight, investigative independence, and political confidentiality could have a lasting impact on the functioning of central agencies in India, particularly in states where ruling parties maintain strong political influence.