The Supreme Court on Thursday described as “very serious” the escalating confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Trinamool Congress (TMC)-led West Bengal government over searches conducted at the premises of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), warning that unchecked interference in central investigations could lead to a “situation of lawlessness”. In a strongly worded order, the apex court admitted petitions filed by the ED and three of its officers and issued notices to chief minister Mamata Banerjee, the state’s director general of police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar and the Kolkata police commissioner, bringing the high-stakes institutional clash directly under its scrutiny.

A bench comprising justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi rejected West Bengal’s preliminary objection that the matter should first be examined by the Calcutta High Court, and fixed the case for further hearing on February 3. The bench observed that the petitions raised issues going to the heart of the rule of law, federal balance and the independence of investigating agencies, especially in situations where central agencies are probing cases involving ruling parties in states governed by opposition governments.

“This is a very serious matter. We will have to examine this,” the bench remarked, indicating its prima facie view that the case involved allegations of “grave interference” by state authorities in the lawful discharge of duties by a central agency. The court underscored that judicial intervention was necessary to ensure adherence to the rule of law and to allow each constitutional organ to function independently.

The petitions before the court arise from dramatic events on January 8, when ED teams carrying out searches at the Salt Lake office of I-PAC in Kolkata and at the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, were allegedly obstructed by senior state officials, including top police officers, following the arrival of chief minister Mamata Banerjee at the premises. According to the ED, the searches were authorised under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and were part of a probe into alleged illegal coal mining and smuggling, involving suspected proceeds of crime amounting to ₹2,742.32 crore.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, alleged that the chief minister personally led senior police officers to the search locations, forcibly removed documents and digital devices seized by ED officials, and prevented the agency from completing its lawful investigation. Mehta characterised the incident as amounting to “theft and robbery” of evidence and claimed that ED officers were intimidated, threatened and subjected to coercion while performing their statutory duties.

The ED further argued that the Kolkata incident was not an isolated episode but part of a recurring pattern in West Bengal, where central agencies investigating cases linked to the ruling party were routinely obstructed. Mehta pointed to what he described as a “complete breakdown of the justice delivery system” on January 9, when ED’s urgent plea could not be taken up by the Calcutta High Court due to commotion in courtrooms, which he referred to as “mobocracy”.

Taking note of these submissions, the Supreme Court expressed deep concern over reports that proceedings in the Calcutta High Court had been disrupted. “Today it is this high court, tomorrow it would be some other high court. That’s our worry,” the bench observed, underlining that the apex court could not remain a mute spectator if the functioning of constitutional courts was affected.

As interim measures, the court directed the West Bengal government to preserve all CCTV footage and electronic and digital records relating to the January 8 searches, including footage from the raided premises and surrounding areas. The bench also stayed all proceedings arising from four FIRs registered by the Kolkata Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, noting that the matter was “delicate” and that the local police could not be permitted to probe further at this stage.

In addition to the institutional petition filed by the ED, three ED officers have separately approached the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the January 8 events. The officers have alleged threats to their personal safety, violations of their fundamental rights and an atmosphere of intimidation that prevented them from carrying out their official duties. The court has sought replies from all respondents within two weeks.

The ED has also sought the suspension of DGP Rajeev Kumar, citing his participation in a dharna alongside chief minister Banerjee following the searches. The agency has demanded disciplinary action against top state police officials and directions to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Union home ministry in this regard.

The bench, in its order, made it clear that while central agencies do not have the authority to interfere with the legitimate election-related activities of any political party, the mere invocation of “party activity” cannot be used as a shield to obstruct lawful investigations. “The question arises as to whether by taking shield of its party activity, the agencies can be obstructed from carrying out its investigating power,” the court observed.

Opposing the ED’s petitions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for chief minister Mamata Banerjee, argued that the ED had approached the Supreme Court even as related proceedings were pending before the Calcutta High Court. He contended that the chief minister entered the premises in her capacity as party chairperson to protect confidential election-related material and accused the ED of deliberately timing the searches to coincide with the election season.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government and the DGP, questioned the maintainability of the petitions and argued that the dispute involved contested questions of fact that should be examined by the high court in the first instance. He accused the ED of forum shopping and urged the apex court to allow the high court proceedings to continue. Senior counsel Shyam Divan, appearing for the Kolkata police commissioner and another senior officer, echoed these submissions.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected these objections at the threshold, emphasising that the extraordinary circumstances alleged in the petitions warranted its immediate intervention. The bench warned that allowing state law enforcement agencies to shield offenders or obstruct central investigations could undermine the constitutional framework and erode public confidence in the justice system.

According to the ED, the January 8 searches were conducted at 10 locations — six in West Bengal and four in Delhi — as part of a money laundering probe linked to alleged coal smuggling kingpin Anup Majee. The agency has claimed that more than ₹20 crore in suspected proceeds of crime were connected to entities associated with I-PAC’s director through hawala channels, and that nearly ₹10 crore was routed to I-PAC as payments for services allegedly rendered to the Trinamool Congress during the 2022 Goa assembly elections.

I-PAC has been associated with the TMC since the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and is currently engaged with the party ahead of upcoming elections. The firm and the party have denied any wrongdoing. Following the searches, the Kolkata Police registered FIRs against ED officials based on complaints by Pratik Jain’s family members and TMC leaders, alleging theft and illegal search. Chief minister Banerjee publicly accused the ED of attempting to “steal” her party’s election strategy and led a protest march in Kolkata to defend her entry into the raided premises.

With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, the case has become a significant test of federal relations, the autonomy of investigating agencies and the limits of political authority during criminal investigations. As the bench observed, the stakes go beyond the immediate dispute and touch upon the broader question of whether the rule of law can be uniformly enforced across states, irrespective of political alignments. The outcome of the proceedings, scheduled to resume in February, is likely to have far-reaching implications for the relationship between the Centre and opposition-ruled states, as well as for the functioning of India’s investigative and judicial institutions.