Supreme Court Takes Action on I-PAC Raid Controversy
The Supreme Court of India issued a formal notice to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Thursday. The court directed her and other state officials to respond within two weeks to allegations made by the Enforcement Directorate. These allegations concern the January 8 raids on the political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata's Salt Lake area.
Court's Interim Directions
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi delivered the order. The bench specifically restrained the West Bengal Police from investigating an FIR registered against ED officials. This FIR was filed by the state police following the controversial raids.
The court issued clear instructions for evidence preservation. "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 shall preserve the CCTV cameras at I-PAC and other cameras containing the footage of nearby areas," the bench stated.
ED's Serious Allegations
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented the Enforcement Directorate's case before the bench. He made startling accusations against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. Mehta claimed she barged into the raid premises and interfered with official proceedings.
"It reflects a very shocking pattern," Mehta told the court. "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."
The Solicitor General provided detailed allegations. He stated that incriminating material was present at the I-PAC premises during the search. Mehta accused Mamata Banerjee of entering the raid location and removing key evidence related to the investigation. He also claimed that mobile phones belonging to ED officials were taken away during the incident.
Mehta emphasized that local police authorities received advance notification about the raid. Despite this, senior officials including the Director General of Police, the Chief Minister, the Police Commissioner, and the local Deputy Commissioner arrived at the scene with a large police force.
Defense Arguments from Mamata's Side
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of Trinamool Congress chairperson Mamata Banerjee. He presented counterarguments challenging the ED's claims. Sibal questioned the timing of the raids, noting they occurred during election season.
"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?" Sibal posed to the court.
Sibal strongly denied the allegation that all digital devices were removed during the raid. "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," he asserted.
The senior advocate also raised procedural objections. He argued that the High Court should first hear the matter under its jurisdiction. Only after the High Court's judgment should parties approach the Supreme Court, he contended.
State Government's Legal Position
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi represented the West Bengal government and the Director General of Police. He raised strong objections regarding the petition's maintainability before the Supreme Court.
Singhvi argued that the ED's direct approach to the Supreme Court was improper. He stated such direct petitions are permissible only in exceptional circumstances where no effective remedy exists elsewhere. The senior advocate pointed out that similar reliefs were already being sought before the High Court.
Regarding the raid notification, Singhvi presented a different timeline. He claimed the state government received only a casual email around 11:30 am, despite the search beginning at 6:45 am. This contradicted the ED's assertion about proper advance notification.
Singhvi also challenged the consistency of the ED's claims. He argued that either the allegations in the plea were incorrect or the official search record was false, as both could not be simultaneously true.
Broader Implications
This legal confrontation highlights ongoing tensions between central investigative agencies and state governments. The case involves significant questions about federal structure and separation of powers. It also touches upon the conduct of investigations during politically sensitive periods.
The Supreme Court's intervention comes at a crucial time. The court has temporarily halted the state police investigation against ED officials. This preserves the status quo while allowing both sides to present their arguments formally.
All parties must now prepare their detailed responses within the two-week deadline. The preserved CCTV footage will likely play a crucial role in establishing what actually transpired during the controversial raids.
