New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday called the ongoing dispute between the Enforcement Directorate and the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government a “serious issue” linked to the rule of law and independent functioning of each state organ.
A bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and J.M. Pancholi stayed the investigation into four cases that were registered as a counter attack following ED’s raid at I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata on 8 January.
The court did so while issuing notice to the West Bengal government, Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee and top officers of the state on ED’s petition urging SC to order a CBI probe into the alleged intrusion by the government and its head in its money laundering probe against I-PAC, the firm which provides political consultancy services to TMC.
The central agency claimed its raid at I-PAC office was legitimate and bonafide since it had a proper notice under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to carry out the action. The TMC government, Banerjee and state officials opposed ED’s plea, contending that the agency had filed a similar petition in Calcutta High Court, which is still seized of the case. They urged the top court to await the final outcome of the high court proceedings before hearing ED.
SC clearly disagreed with the state’s view as it prima facie opined that ED’s petition raised a “serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED or other central agencies and its interference by state agencies”.
“According to us, for adherence to the rule of law in the country and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of law enforcement agencies of a particular state,” said the judges in the interim order.
If the larger issues in ED’s petition remain unanswered, it could lead to the worsening of the “situation” and “lawlessness”, not only in West Bengal, but in other states as well, they added.
The court, however, accepted the West Bengal government’s submission that no central probe agency has the power to interfere with the election work of any party.
“But at the same time if central agencies are investigating bonafide to investigate a serious offence, question arises whether in the shield of its party activities, can the agencies be affected from carrying out its activities,” the bench observed, giving two weeks to the CM, state government and officers named in the petition to respond.
The court also directed the state police and government to preserve all CCTV camera recordings, while seeking a response on ED’s petition to suspend the police officers who interjected its probe. It will hear the matter next on 3 February.
ED has also sought a direction for the return of the evidence that Banerjee is alleged to have taken from the premises linked to I-PAC. It has claimed that its searches were part of its investigation into a 2020 money-laundering case against businessman Anup Majee, who is accused of coal smuggling. Banerjee’s interference with its search operations is a direct assault on its powers under the PMLA, the agency has said.
TMC has countered ED’s stand, accusing it of stalling the party’s campaign and political strategy ahead of the upcoming assembly elections in West Bengal.
Also Read: Mamata committed ‘robbery’ during I-PAC raids, TMC hell bent on stalling court hearings—ED tells SC
‘State will feel they can barge in’
Before the Supreme Court, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta urged the bench to take cognisance of a “serious” incident that reflects a “shocking pattern where a statutory authority (Chief Minister Banerjee) barges into premises being searched by a central agency”. ED, he added, had informed the local police before the search, and accused Banerjee of “theft”. “She took an ED officer’s phone as well. This will only encourage such acts and the central forces will be demoralised. The state will feel they can barge in, and commit theft and then sit on dharna.”
Mehta highlighted the commotion seen during last week’s hearing in the high court, and demanded suspension of the police officers accompanying Banerjee when she stormed the premises during the raid.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju’s mic was repeatedly muted during Wednesday’s hearing of the matter, he complained, recalling how the first hearing of ED’s case in the high court witnessed “mobocracy”. He further provided a brief overview of the case in relation to which ED held searches of I-PAC’s premises.
ASG Raju appeared for three ED officers, who were part of the team, and urged the bench to order registration of a criminal case against those who had obstructed the rule of law by intervening in the raid. He took objection to the court hearing Banerjee and others, contending that someone accused of an offence is not heard before registration of an FIR.
‘All poll data is confidential’
Meanwhile, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, argued that the matter should be heard by the high court first, where the ED has already filed a plea.
On merits, he submitted that I-PAC takes care of election campaigning for TMC, and is in possession of crucial information concerning the party’s strategy, which ED was aware of. He accused the central agency of interfering in poll-bound states.
“All election data is confidential, and it is all kept there. There will be a lot of information on candidates etc. Why was the need to go there in the midst of the election? Last statement in the coal scam was recorded on 24 February, 2024. What have they been doing since then? Once you have information…how do we fight the election? Chairman (of the political party) has the right to protect it, and thus went there,” Sibal said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government, challenged the petition on the ground that it was not maintainable. The commotion witnessed in the high court last week cannot be used to maintain parallel proceedings, he said.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: ED’s claims against I-PAC & Delhi liquor policy case have a common link—hawala firm & Goa