The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered strong observations while hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), criticising the alleged interference by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during agency raids linked to the I-PAC case. The court remarked that such conduct was “not a happy situation” and raised concerns about the lack of remedies available to central agencies in similar circumstances.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N. V. Anjaria questioned what recourse would exist if a Chief Minister intervenes in the functioning of a central investigative agency. The judges noted that such incidents create an “organic situation” requiring a clear legal response and indicated that the court may consider framing standard operating procedures (SOPs) to address such scenarios in the future.
During the hearing, the bench emphasised that central agencies cannot be left without protection or remedy if their operations are obstructed. It pointed out that if such actions were repeated by other state leaders, it could set a concerning precedent affecting the functioning of investigative bodies across the country.
Representing the West Bengal government, senior advocate Shyam Divan argued that the Constitution already provides mechanisms for addressing such disputes. He suggested that instead of individual departments approaching courts directly, the Centre could initiate appropriate constitutional proceedings to resolve conflicts between state and central authorities.
The case stems from an ED petition alleging interference during raids conducted on January 8 at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its head, Prateek Jain. The searches were part of a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged coal scam. During the raids, Mamata Banerjee reportedly visited the locations, took away certain documents and electronic items, and questioned the legitimacy of the operation.
The ED has described these actions as a “gross abuse of power,” while Banerjee has maintained that the raids were politically motivated and orchestrated ahead of the West Bengal elections. The incident led to significant political confrontation and legal escalation between the state government and central agencies.
During the proceedings, the court also rejected a request by the West Bengal government to adjourn the hearing. When Divan sought more time to respond to the ED’s submissions, the bench declined, stating that it would consider all material already on record. The judges made it clear that neither party could dictate how the court should evaluate the case.
The matter is scheduled to be heard further next week, with the court expected to examine both the legal implications of the alleged interference and the broader question of safeguarding the functioning of central investigative agencies.
