“ED Has Been Weaponised”, “No, ED Was Terrorised”: Supreme Court Witnesses Sharp Exchange While Hearing ED's Article 32 Plea Against Mamata Banerjee
Evan V
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the Enforcement Directorate’s petition under Article 32 of the Constitution alleging obstruction during a search at the Kolkata office of I-PAC, the political consultancy associated with the All India Trinamool Congress. The proceedings saw a pointed exchange between counsel over allegations that the agency had been “weaponized” and the Union’s contention that the ED was instead “terrorized”.
A Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted the submission of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the ED is likely to file its rejoinder the same day, and listed the matter for further hearing on March 18.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that the agency must justify its alleged “weaponization”. In response, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju stated that the agency had been “terrorized”, adding: "It [ED] has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized".
The ED’s writ petition impleads the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and certain state police officers, alleging interference with the agency’s statutory functioning during the search operation.
On the previous date, the Bench issued notice on the petition and stayed further proceedings in three FIRs lodged by the West Bengal Police against ED officials. The Court also noted that the issue raised was serious and required examination, observing that, otherwise, there could be a "situation of lawlessness" in the State.
The Court further directed the State to preserve CCTV cameras and other electronic devices containing footage of the premises searched on January 8, as well as recordings of the surrounding areas. The State has since filed a counter-affidavit disputing the maintainability of the ED’s Article 32 petition, citing the pendency of related proceedings before the Calcutta High Court.
The ED’s petition arises from events during a search conducted on January 8 at the I-PAC office in Kolkata in connection with a money-laundering investigation linked to the alleged coal scam. The ED alleges that the Chief Minister reached the premises during the operation along with senior party leaders and confronted ED officers, and further claims that certain files were taken away from the premises during the raid, thereby impeding the investigation.
According to the ED, the Chief Minister’s presence at the search site and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on officials and undermined the agency’s ability to discharge its functions independently. The agency also alleges repeated obstruction and non-cooperation by the State administration.
The ED has sought directions for an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation, contending that a neutral central agency is necessary given the alleged interference by the State executive.
Before approaching the Supreme Court, the ED had approached the Calcutta High Court regarding the same incident, seeking protection and other directions. On January 14, the High Court disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress after recording the ED’s statement that it had not seized anything from the I-PAC office or its director, Prateek Jain.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
