Offenders can't be shielded by state: SC seeks WB CM Mamta Banerjee's response on ED's plea over I-PAC raid interference

New Delhi [India], January 15 (ANI): Observing that offenders cannot be protected under the shield of law-enforcement agencies of a particular state, the Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state-police officials on pleas filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging interference by state authorities during its search operations at the premises of political consultancy firm I-PAC under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and A.G. Masih noted that if issues involving larger constitutional questions are left undecided, it could lead to a situation of lawlessness in states governed by different political outfits.
"Considering adherence of rule of law in the country 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. According to us, larger questions are involved and raised, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation, and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or other state, considering that different outfits are governing at different places," the Court observed.
The Court has also stayed an FIR registered by the West Bengal police against ED officials who had entered the I-PAC premises to conduct searches, after ED counsel sought interim protection. During the hearing, the Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of ED, described the incident as reflecting a "shocking state of affairs" in West Bengal.
"In this State, whenever statutory authorities perform an investigation, the Hon'ble Chief Minister barges into wherever it is being conducted," the SG submitted. He alleged that the Chief Minister was accompanied by the Director General of Police, the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner (of Kolkata) and a large contingent of police personnel. The police personnel also accompanied the political leader to stage a "dharna" (protest) at the site, the SG added.
The SG further submitted that ED officers were obstructed in the discharge of their official duties and were personally aggrieved by the events that unfolded. He also alleged a pattern of intimidation against central agencies in West Bengal by referring to a prior incident in which the residence of a CBI Joint-Director was allegedly "gheraoed" and ransacked.
According to the ED, incriminating material pertaining to the alleged coal scam of ₹2742.32 crores was present both at the I-PAC premises and at the residence of persons under investigation. Despite prior intimation to the local police, a large police force allegedly entered the premises during the search, ED contended. It was also alleged that materials seized by the ED were taken away, including the mobile phone of an ED officer.
As per the ED, in the alleged coal scam, excavated and stolen coal used to be sold to a group of companies", SG submitted. "If this (interference) continues, it will encourage central officers not to discharge their duties. Central forces will be demoralised," Mehta warned, adding that such actions would have a chilling effect on investigations.
The ED urged the Supreme Court to set a precedent by directing the suspension of police officers who were present at the scene and ordering a departmental inquiry to be conducted by the State Chief Secretary. Further, it sought directions to recover (from WB authorities) the seized evidence (by ED) under the supervision of the Court.
"This is what happens when mobocracy replaces democracy," the SG remarked. The SG also alleged attempts to disrupt judicial proceedings. He submitted that on January 9, the matter could not be heard as the atmosphere in the High Court was unconducive.
ED also placed on record WhatsApp chats of the All India Trinamool Congress legal cell allegedly calling supporters to assemble in court. Buses and vehicles were arranged to mobilise crowds, the SG remarked. In response, the Court remarked that it seems as if the High Court had been turned into "Jantar Mantar".
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, objected to the maintainability of the ED's plea. He argued that if the High Court was already seized of the matter, there was no need for the Supreme Court to entertain parallel proceedings. According to him, the ED was engaging in forum shopping. He submitted that there was no basis to assume that hearings could not take place before the High Court.
Raising questions over the timing of the ED raid, Sibal questioned why the ED chose to conduct searches in 2026, close to state elections, when it had not acted in 2024 or 2025. "Statements were recorded in the matter last in February 2024", he highlighted.
He argued that the ED was aware that the premises contained political party data and election-related material and questioned the necessity of entering such premises in the midst of an election cycle. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government and the Director General of Police, objected to the maintainability of the ED's plea.
He pointed out that the ED had first approached the High Court and then, the very next day, filed petitions before the Supreme Court. Questioning alleged inconsistencies in the ED's record, Singhvi argued that either the panchanama was incorrect or the version presented in the Supreme Court petition was wrong. Referring to the timeline given in ED's panchnama, Singhvi submitted that the search was shown to have commenced at 6:45 a.m., while intimation to the police was sent at 11:30. He questioned how a person who had sent an email at 11:30 a.m. could later claim that it was sent earlier.
"This was a way to cover up tracks. Paper trail created", Singhvi added. Singhvi further submitted that unidentified persons had entered the premises and refused to disclose their identities. Defending the Director General of Police, Singhvi stated the Chief Minister is a Z-plus (security class) protectee. He argued that it was the duty of the police to ensure her security. "That is why the DGP went there," Singhvi said.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for ED officers who had filed a separate plea seeking registration of an FIR by the CBI, argued that the incident disclosed a prima facie case of theft, which is a cognizable offence.
Referring to the apex court's landmark ruling, Lalita Kumari, he submitted that registration of an FIR was mandatory in such cases. He argued that the offence was not merely theft, but could extend to robbery or dacoity, though he limited his submissions to theft.
Raju alleged that the Chief Minister herself had committed theft in the presence of the DGP and the Kolkata Police Commissioner. "When the highest officials are involved in the crime, a CBI investigation is required," he submitted, seeking transfer of the probe to the central agency.
After hearing submissions by both sides - ED and the West Bengal government, the apex court issued notice to West Bengal CM Mamta Banerjee and other officials of the state administration, including the DGP, Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police (in Kolkata), seeking a response on ED's plea. It posted the matter to be heard next on February 3.
"Issue notice to the respondents. The counter affidavit must 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 Court noted. (ANI)