The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, State Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, and other officials on petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate alleging interference by the state in a money laundering probe related to political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC).
The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi directed the respondents to file their replies within two weeks and agreed to examine the ED’s ancillary prayer seeking transfer of the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The Apex Court indicated that the pleadings disclosed issues of considerable institutional gravity, touching upon the autonomy of statutory investigative agencies, the doctrine of federal balance, and the rule of law.
At the threshold stage, the Bench recorded a prima facie view that allegations of obstruction of searches conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) raise systemic concerns warranting judicial scrutiny. Emphasising that constitutional governance presupposes the independent functioning of each organ of the State, the Court noted that unchecked interference by State authorities in bona fide investigations by central agencies could erode the uniform application of law and foster administrative anarchy across jurisdictions. The Bench observed that political authority, irrespective of electoral considerations, cannot be deployed to impede statutorily sanctioned investigative processes, just as central agencies are duty-bound not to intrude upon legitimate electoral activity.
Pending further consideration, the Court directed preservation of all CCTV cameras and electronic storage devices containing footage of the searched premises as well as adjoining areas, thereby invoking principles governing preservation of evidence and chain of custody. The Bench also stayed multiple FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officers involved in the searches, taking note of submissions that such proceedings could have a chilling effect on the discharge of statutory duties. The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 3.
The controversy traces its origin to search operations undertaken by the ED last week as part of an investigation into alleged proceeds of crime linked to a 2020 coal smuggling case involving businessman Anup Majee. During the searches, the Chief Minister, accompanied by senior police officials, entered the premises under search. The ED has alleged that documents and electronic devices were removed during this intervention, contending that such conduct amounted to obstruction of a lawful search and a direct affront to the agency’s powers under Sections 17 and 18 of the PMLA. The agency has also sought directions for the return of materials allegedly taken from the premises.
Earlier, the ED had approached the Calcutta High Court with similar grievances, where proceedings were adjourned at the agency’s request. The Supreme Court’s intervention followed submissions that circumstances necessitated immediate constitutional adjudication.
Appearing for the ED, the Solicitor General submitted that the episode revealed an unprecedented situation in which a constitutional authority allegedly intruded into an active search operation conducted by a central agency after due intimation to local police. It was contended that such actions, if left unaddressed, would demoralise enforcement agencies and undermine their ability to investigate economic offences. The Additional Solicitor General, representing individual ED officers, argued that the alleged acts constituted cognisable offences attracting the mandatory registration of FIRs, relying on settled jurisprudence under Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and related precedents. It was further urged that the involvement of the State’s top executive and police leadership justified an independent investigation by the CBI, consistent with principles laid down in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights and subsequent decisions permitting such transfers in exceptional circumstances.
The ED also drew the Court’s attention to events during hearings before the Calcutta High Court, alleging disruption of court proceedings and intimidation, and contended that the filing of FIRs against ED officials was intended to exert pressure on the investigation.
Opposing the petitions, senior counsel appearing for the Chief Minister contended that the ED had engaged in parallel proceedings by invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 32 while the matter was already pending before the High Court. On merits, it was argued that I-PAC functions as the Trinamool Congress’s election management consultant and houses sensitive political and campaign-related data protected by constitutional guarantees of political speech and association. The Chief Minister’s presence at the premises was sought to be characterised as an act undertaken in her capacity as party chairperson to safeguard confidential party information, with reliance placed on the panchnama to contend that the ED’s search was neither obstructed nor curtailed.
Senior counsel for the State of West Bengal and the DGP questioned the maintainability of the petitions, submitting that Article 32 jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly and that the ED had failed to demonstrate institutional helplessness. Allegations of forum shopping were also raised, alongside submissions that police presence was necessitated by the Chief Minister’s security protocol as a Z-category protectee.
The Bench, while reserving its views on maintainability and merits, indicated that repeated disruption of judicial processes and alleged interference with investigations could not be normalised. It clarified that no material had been shown to suggest that the ED had seized any election-related data, and reiterated that issuance of notice did not imply any final determination.
The post Supreme Court pulls up West Bengal over interference in I-PAC money laundering probe appeared first on India Legal.