West Bengal Chief Minister Submits Detailed Affidavit to Supreme Court Rejecting ED Allegations
In a significant legal development, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has filed a comprehensive affidavit before the Supreme Court of India, categorically denying theft charges leveled against her by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The charges stem from the central agency's searches conducted on January 8 at two key locations: the office of political consultancy I-PAC in Salt Lake, Kolkata, and the Loudon Street residence of the consultancy's director, Prateek Jain.
CM's Defense: Protecting Sensitive Political Data
The affidavit, submitted ahead of a Supreme Court hearing on an ED plea scheduled for Tuesday, presents Banerjee's detailed account of the events. The Chief Minister asserted that she only removed "sensitive political documents of her party" from the officials involved in the searches, and that this action was taken with their explicit permission. This clarification forms the core of her defense against what she describes as baseless allegations.
Simultaneously, the Bengal government has also filed a separate affidavit, formally questioning the validity and motives behind the ED's charges. This coordinated legal response underscores the state administration's position that the central agency's actions were politically motivated and legally questionable.
Supreme Court Proceedings and Adjournment
The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing on the ED's plea to February 10. The central agency's petition alleges obstruction by the Bengal government, including direct interference by Chief Minister Banerjee, during its searches at the I-PAC office and Jain's residence. These searches were part of an ongoing investigation into a coal smuggling scam that has significant political and economic implications.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria deferred the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, requested additional time to review and respond to the detailed affidavits submitted by Banerjee and the Bengal government.
Constitutional Arguments and Political Safeguards
In her affidavit, Chief Minister Banerjee provided a robust constitutional justification for her presence at the search locations. She stated that, in her capacity as Trinamool Congress (TMC) chairperson, her presence was "both lawful and essential — a constitutional safeguard against misuse of central investigative power." This framing positions her actions as protective rather than obstructive.
Furthermore, Banerjee's submission argued that the ED's use of search powers appeared designed not to locate proceeds of crime, but to intrude into and intimidate a political organization. She cited previous Supreme Court rulings that have characterized such actions as "mala fide in law and unconstitutional."
I-PAC's Role as TMC's Digital Command Center
The affidavit revealed critical details about the function of the I-PAC premises, describing it as TMC's digital and analytical command centre. According to Banerjee's submission, the location housed the party's:
- Sensitive electoral database
- Comprehensive campaign analytics
- Confidential internal communications
Banerjee argued that the search therefore constituted a direct intrusion into the political machinery of a constitutionally recognized state party. Her presence during the searches, she claimed, was necessary to ensure that unrelated political data and party members' information were not unlawfully accessed or removed.
"This was said to be a 'constitutional duty, not defiance,'" the affidavit emphasized, framing her intervention as a protective measure rather than an obstruction.
Supreme Court's Previous Observations and Directives
The top court had previously, on January 15, characterized the Chief Minister's alleged obstruction of the ED's probe as "very serious" and agreed to examine whether state law-enforcement agencies could interfere with central agency investigations into serious offences. This observation came while the court stayed Bengal government's FIRs against ED officials who conducted the January 8 searches.
Additionally, the Supreme Court issued several important directives:
- Ordered state police to protect CCTV footage of the searches
- Issued notices to Banerjee, the Bengal government, then DGP Rajeev Kumar, and other senior police officers
- Responded to ED's petition seeking a CBI probe against the mentioned parties
Legal Experts Weigh In on Constitutional Implications
A senior lawyer familiar with the case deliberations offered a strong rebuff to the ED's claims, stating: "Seizing a party's digital core threatens fair elections and voter privacy. Her (Banerjee's) intervention prevented unlawful access to data, whose misuse could distort electoral fairness."
The legal expert further clarified: "The TMC chairperson did not prevent ED from executing lawful searches; she ensured procedural compliance and preservation of unrelated material. That is due proactive caution, not interference."
Emphasizing the broader constitutional principles at stake, the lawyer highlighted that successive Supreme Court orders have established an "unbroken line" that "no State power — administrative or investigative — may be used as a political instrument." This principle forms a crucial backdrop to the current legal confrontation between state and central authorities.
The case continues to develop as both sides prepare their legal arguments for the February 10 hearing, with significant implications for federal relations, investigative agency powers, and political party protections in India's constitutional framework.
