Sipu Jha
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to CM Mamata Banerjee and other state officials seeking their response within two weeks on allegations levelled by Enforcement Directorate over the raids on political consultancy firm I-PAC.The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi also restrained West Bengal Police from conducting probe on FIR registered by the police against ED and its officials,This comes following the central agency’s raid on I-PAC and its chief Pratik Jain at Kolkata’s Salt Lake on January 8.The ED alleged that chief minister Mamata Banerjee interfered during the raids, removed digital devices and key documents with police support, and forced officials to terminate the searches without making any seizures.“Issue notice to the respondents. Counter affidavit be filed within two weeks. Post the matter on February 3, 2026. In the meanwhile it is directed that, the respondents (West Bengal government) shall preserve the CCTV cameras at I-PAC and other cameras containing the footage of nearby areas,” the bench said.Who said what?ED’s allegations against Mamata
- Appearing before the bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accused Mamata of “barging in and interfered”, “whenever statutory authorities exercised statutory power.”
- “It reflects a very shocking pattern,” Mehta said.
- “The states will feel they can barge in, commit theft, and then sit on a dharna. Let an example be set; officers who were explicitly present there should be suspended,” Mehta added.
- Mehta said that there was evidence indicating “incriminating material” was present at the premises searched during the I-PAC raid in Kolkata.
- Further, he accused Mamata of entering the premises where the raid was ongoing and taking way “key” evidence related to the probe.
- He said local police authorities had been duly informed in advance and that senior officials, including the DGP, the CM, the commissioner of police, the local deputy commissioner of police (DCP), and a large police force, subsequently reached the spot.
- “There was evidence leading to the conclusion that incriminating material was lying in a premise…local police was intimated…DGP, CM and Commissioner of Police and DCP of area, large police force, goes there…took material unauthorizedly. It’s an offense of THEFT. She takes it away. Mobile of ED official also taken away. She even went before media…this will encourage officers to not discharge their duty. Forces will be demoralized. Let example be set. Officers who were present during exercise be placed under suspension and placed under departmental enquiry. Please take cognizance of what’s happening,” Mehta said.
Mamata’s counter allegations
- Appearing in behalf of Trinamool Congress chairman Mamata Banerjee, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the high court must first hear the matter and deliver its judgment, after which the parties could approach the appellate forum.
- He argued that parallel proceedings had now been initiated, even though the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226, and that this was the proper hierarchy to be followed.
- Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said that IPAC had a large amount of party data, and when the ED went there, it knew that sensitive party information would be present.
- Sibal also referred to the video recording of the raid and said, “It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. Allegation that CM Mamata Banerjee took all devices is a lie, substantiated by ED’s own panchnama (search record).”
- “The last statement in the coal scam was recorded in February 2024; what was ED doing since then? Why so keen in the midst of elections?” he posed.
- Meanwhile, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the State and the DGP, raised a strong objection to the maintainability of the petition.
- He submitted that if notice was to be issued, it should be made clear that it would be subject to their objection on maintainability.
- Singhvi argued that a direct approach to the Supreme Court by the ED was permissible only in exceptional situations where no effective remedy was available. He also objected to forum shopping, pointing out that broadly similar reliefs had already been sought before the high court.
- Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi argued that either the allegations made in the plea were incorrect or the panchnama itself was false, as both could not stand together
- He said that claims of obstruction and inability to conduct the search were untrue in light of the panchnama. Referring to the Solicitor General’s statement that the authorities were informed, Singhvi contended that the State received only a casual email at around 11:30 am, even though the search had begun at 6:45 am. He urged the ED to place clear instructions on record and alleged that the exercise was merely an attempt to cover tracks and create a paper trail.
हिन्दी 
English