West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee
Kolkata: In a stinging rebuke that has dealt a severe blow to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s confrontational stance against Central agencies, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed all FIRs filed against Enforcement Directorate officials and issued notices to the Chief Minister and senior police officers, calling the alleged interference in ED raids a “very serious issue” that threatens the rule of law.
The apex court’s intervention came after a dramatic sequence of events that began on January 8, when ED officers conducted searches at the Salt Lake Sector V office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the Loudon Street residence of its director Pratik Jain as part of a money laundering investigation linked to a 2020 coal smuggling case.
What followed was unprecedented. Around noon that day, Chief Minister Banerjee herself arrived at Jain’s residence, stayed for approximately 20 minutes, and emerged carrying a green file, documents, hard disks, a laptop and a mobile phone. She was accompanied by Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Verma and Kolkata Police DC Priyobrata Roy.
Speaking to reporters outside Jain’s residence, a visibly agitated Banerjee launched a sharp attack on the Central Government. “Is it the duty of the ED, Amit Shah to collect the party’s hard disk, candidate list, party strategy, party plan?” she asked. Referring to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, she added, “The nasty, naughty Home Minister who cannot protect the country and is taking away all my party documents. What will be the result if I raid the BJP party office?”
The Chief Minister continued her broadside: “They were confiscating my party’s documents and hard disks, which have details about our candidates for the Assembly polls. I have brought those back.” She also linked the raid to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, claiming, “On one side in the name of SIR, 54 lakhs names have been deleted.”
From Jain’s residence, Banerjee proceeded to the IPAC office on the 11th floor of a building in Salt Lake Sector V, where Kolkata Police personnel were seen transferring files directly into the Chief Minister’s vehicle. “I am sorry Mr. Prime Minister, please control your Home Minister,” she said. “By using agencies to steal our poll plan, your seat will get reduced to zero. This is not law enforcement, this is political vendetta.”
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi didn’t mince words in their observations. “We are of the prima facie opinion that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other Central agencies and its interference by State agencies,” the court stated, adding that it was “necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of the law enforcement agencies of a particular State.”
The court went further, warning that if such issues involving larger constitutional questions are left undecided, it could lead to a “situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other State, considering that different political outfits are governing at different places.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, described the episode as reflecting a “shocking pattern” and “pure theft.” He told the court that Banerjee “took an ED officer’s phone as well” and that such actions would “demoralize Central forces and encourage further law-breaking.” Mehta characterized the incident as one where “mobocracy replaces democracy.”
The Supreme Court was particularly disturbed by events at the Calcutta High Court on January 9, when the matter could not be heard due to commotion in the courtroom. The ED produced WhatsApp messages allegedly from the legal cell of the Trinamool Congress calling party members to assemble at the court. Justice Mishra remarked that it appeared as if the High Court had been turned into “Jantar Mantar.”
The Supreme Court directed preservation of all CCTV footage and electronic storage devices from the searched premises and surrounding areas, and stayed proceedings in three FIRs that the West Bengal Police had registered against ED officials on charges including theft, criminal trespass, and IT Act violations. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 3, with respondents given two weeks to file their responses.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, argued that the Chief Minister entered the I-PAC premises not in her official capacity but as chairperson of the Trinamool Congress after receiving information that party-related election material was being removed. He contended that I-PAC houses sensitive and confidential poll data and accused the ED of acting with “mala fide intent” to disturb the election process. Sibal also questioned the timing of the raids, asking why the ED acted in 2026, close to State elections, when statements in the matter were last recorded in February 2024.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state government, argued that as a Z-category protectee, it was mandatory for police officers including the DGP to accompany Banerjee wherever she goes. He also objected to the maintainability of the ED’s plea, calling it “forum shopping” since the matter was already before the Calcutta High Court.
The BJP was swift to seize on the Supreme Court’s observations. Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat accused Banerjee of making “unacceptable and unforgivable” attempts to obstruct constitutional institutions. “Political differences are natural in a democracy, but undermining constitutional institutions is an assault on the very soul of India,” he said.
BJP national spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari called the court’s order “a big slap on the face of the TMC government,” adding that “Mamata Banerjee’s attempt to act as ‘victim’ fall flat”.
BJP MLA Agnimitra Paul was more pointed, saying the court had “taught a good lesson” to Banerjee and that her “politics of lies stands exposed.” She called for the suspension of DGP Rajiv Kumar, whom she accused of destroying evidence in the Saradha ponzi scam.
The TMC, however, has maintained its stance that the raids were politically motivated. Party spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said the ED was being deployed to “divert, access or disrupt” the party’s campaign machinery ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections.
The Calcutta High Court had earlier on Wednesday disposed of the TMC’s petition seeking protection of confidential political data after the ED clarified it had not seized any material from either the I-PAC office or Jain’s residence.
Legal experts note that while the Supreme Court has in exceptional circumstances ordered registration of FIRs against public functionaries, directing criminal action against a sitting chief minister remains a rare exercise. The case now stands at the confusing intersection of Centre-State relations, investigative autonomy, and electoral politics, with the Supreme Court signalling it will scrutinize both the ED’s actions and the State’s response with equal rigour.
The next hearing on February 3 is expected to further clarify the boundaries between legitimate political activity and obstruction of lawful investigations, and the dubious role played by a sitting Chief Minister.
