The Supreme Court on Thursday concluded the first day of hearing in the case relating to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) search operations at the office and residence of Prateek Jain, director of political consultancy firm I-PAC, in Kolkata, and observed that the allegations of interference by the West Bengal administration raise serious legal and constitutional concerns.
Issuing an interim order, a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi said the matter was not an isolated incident and required examination to uphold the rule of law and ensure that constitutional institutions function independently.
“The court is of the prima facie view that the present petition has raised serious issues relating to investigation by the ED or other central agencies and their alleged interference by state agencies,” Justice Mishra said while pronouncing the order.
The court noted that larger questions were involved which, if left undecided, could worsen the situation and lead to lawlessness. “For the prevalence of rule of law and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of law-enforcing agencies of a particular state,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file counter-affidavits within two weeks. The matter has been posted for further hearing on February 3, 2026.
As part of the interim directions, the court ordered the preservation of CCTV cameras and storage devices containing footage from both the premises searched on January 8, as well as footage from nearby areas. The apex court also stayed the FIRs lodged by the West Bengal police against ED officers in connection with the incident.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, described the alleged obstruction by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior police officials as a “direct act of theft” and sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the role of the Chief Minister, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Verma. He warned that such actions would severely undermine the functioning of central investigating agencies and demoralise officers.
Mehta told the court that the ED has been probing a coal smuggling scam worth approximately Rs 2,742.32 crore since 2020, and that proceeds of crime were allegedly routed from Kolkata to Goa through a firm linked to I-PAC’s operational framework. Based on this information, ED officials conducted searches on January 8 at multiple locations, including Jain’s residence.
According to the ED, senior police officers and later the Chief Minister herself entered the premises during the search despite requests not to interfere. The agency alleged that documents and digital devices were forcibly removed, ED officers were wrongfully confined, and FIRs were later filed against them by the state police, making investigation into a large financial scam “extremely difficult”.
The ED’s 160-page petition claimed that the situation in West Bengal disclosed “a shocking state of affairs” where law-enforcing authorities themselves were allegedly involved in cognisable offences warranting registration of FIRs under the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014).
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Chief Minister and the West Bengal government, opposed the ED’s plea, arguing that it was not maintainable as related matters were already pending before the Calcutta High Court. Sibal contended that the panchnama showed no recovery of incriminating material and said the Chief Minister had visited the premises in her capacity as chairperson of the Trinamool Congress, as I-PAC was handling the party’s election work.
Singhvi added that the I-PAC office contained only election-related documents with no connection to the ED’s probe, while also pointing out that the Chief Minister’s Z+ security made it mandatory for senior police officials to accompany her.
While the Solicitor General repeatedly urged the court to issue directions against the DGP and the Police Commissioner, the Supreme Court declined to pass any such orders at this stage.
Observing on reports of chaos at the Calcutta High Court, the bench remarked that emotions should not repeatedly spiral out of control.
“We are issuing notice; this is a very serious matter,” Justice Mishra had earlier said orally, indicating the court’s inclination to examine the issue in depth.
The interim protection granted to ED officers and the court’s observations are expected to have significant implications for the ongoing tussle between central investigating agencies and the West Bengal government.
Follow us
