New Delhi, Jan 15: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the FIRs registered by the West Bengal police against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers in connection with searches conducted against the political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata, observing that the matter raised serious and far-reaching questions about alleged interference with investigations by central agencies.
High political drama unfolded in West Bengal on on January 8 after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee reached the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC even as the Enforcement Directorate was conducting search operations in connection with the coal smuggling case.
The ED had accused Mamata Banerjee of entering the residential premises of Prateek Jain, director of I-PAC, during the ongoing search operation and taking away "key evidence", including physical documents and electronic devices.
The central agency has approached the Supreme Court after the West Bengal police had registered FIRs against ED officers following the raids.
The apex court directed that the CCTV footage of the searched premises be preserved, issued notice to the respondents, and sought counter affidavits. The FIR stay will continue till the next hearing on February 3.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi said that larger issues had arisen which, if left unanswered, could lead to lawlessness across states governed by different political parties.
While noting that central agencies cannot interfere with a political party's election work, the Supreme Court questioned whether bona fide investigations into serious offences could be obstructed by taking the shield of political activity.
Appearing for the ED, Tushar Mehta submitted that the case reflected a disturbing pattern, alleging that whenever central agencies discharge their statutory duties, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, intervenes by reaching the spot with senior police officials and staging protests. He told the Court that three petitions were before it--filed by the ED, an affected individual, and two ED officers.
The Solicitor General alleged that incriminating material located at a particular premises was removed without authorisation despite the local police being informed, and that the Chief Minister, DGP, Commissioner of Police and area DCP arrived with a large police contingent.
He further claimed that an ED officer's mobile phone was taken away, residences of senior ED officers had been gheraoed in the past, and such actions demoralised central forces. According to him, the alleged acts made it difficult to probe a money-laundering case involving proceeds of crime of about ₹2,742 crore.
Mehta also pointed to alleged attempts to influence court proceedings, claiming that WhatsApp messages circulated by the ruling party's (TMC) legal wing had called for people to assemble in court, creating chaos. He urged the apex court to take cognisance of the situation and said a clear message was required to protect officers' Article 21 rights and the interests of victims of money laundering.
Opposing the plea, Kapil Sibal, appearing for the TMC chairperson Mamata Banerjee, argued that the petitions were not maintainable and that the High Court should first decide the matter under Article 226. He alleged a pattern of ED action coinciding with elections and questioned the timing of the search, noting that the last statement in the related case was recorded in February 2024.
Sibal contended that the premises housed sensitive party data linked to election strategy, and that the ED knew such information would be present. He said the Chief Minister had visited the site in her capacity as party chairperson after being informed that unauthorised persons had entered the premises of an individual handling election work. Relying on the panchnama, he asserted that no incriminating material was seized and that allegations of large-scale seizure were exaggerated to create prejudice.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the State and the DGP, also objected to the maintainability of the petitions and alleged forum shopping, pointing out that similar reliefs were already sought before the High Court. He argued that the panchnama contradicted claims of obstruction and said the State had received only a late, casual intimation about the search. Singhvi added that since the Chief Minister enjoys Z+ security, it was the DGP's duty to accompany her.
After hearing both sides, the Bench held that the petitions raised serious issues concerning investigations by the ED and other central agencies and alleged interference by state authorities. While refusing to allow coercive steps against ED officers for now, the Court clarified that the detailed submissions were being recorded given the gravity of the allegations and the fact that proceedings are now televised. The matter will be taken up next on February 3.
(ANI)
