New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will examine the Enforcement Directorate’s allegation that the West Bengal government and Chief Minister
Mamata Banerjee obstructed the agency during their raids against political consultancy firm I-PAC, and termed it a “very serious” matter.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi remarked orally, “This is a very serious matter; we will issue a notice. We have to examine it.”
The ED had, on January 8, carried out raids at the office of I-PAC, which works with Mamata Banerjee’s TMC, and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, in connection with an alleged coal smuggling scam. The central federal agency alleged that Banerjee and state government officials tried to interfere with its probe and searches at the offices of I-PAC.
The top court also said that it was “very much disturbed” by the ruckus at the Calcutta High Court during its hearing related to the ongoing face-off between ED and the Mamata Banerjee-led TMC government over recent raids at I-PAC office. An unmanageable chaos during the hearing of the ED raid case forced the Calcutta HC to adjourn the matter till January 14.
What ED said in SC
As the hearing commenced, the ED said the West Bengal government’s “interference and obstruction” during the probe agency’s raids reflects a “very shocking pattern”.
Representing the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the apex court that in the past too, Banerjee barged in and tried to interfere whenever statutory authorities exercised statutory power. “It reflects a very shocking pattern,” Mehta said while underscoring that this will only encourage such acts, and the central forces will be demoralised.
“The states will feel they can barge in, commit theft, and then sit on a dharna. Let an example be set, officers who were explicitly present there should be suspended,” the solicitor general said.
Informing the top court about the chaos that unfolded in HC during the hearing of the ED’s plea on January 9, Mehta said a group of lawyers and other persons not linked to the case entered the courtroom and disrupted the proceedings, leading the judge to adjourn the matter. “This happens when mobocracy replaces democracy,” he told the top court.
Mehta alleged that lawyers were asked to come to the court at a specific time through a WhatsApp message. “See what the High Court judge observes in the order. It notes a huge number of lawyers gathered, creating commotion. She stated that the environment in the court was not conducive to a hearing,” he said.
What Mamata Banerjee told SC
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Banerjee, opposed Mehta’s plea and said the case should be heard by the Calcutta High Court first, and proper hierarchy should be followed, accusing the ED of filing parallel proceedings. He also questioned the need for the ED raid ahead of the West Bengal elections. “The last statement in the coal scam was recorded in February 2024; what was ED doing since then? Why so keen in the midst of elections?” he posed.
Sibal also refuted ED’s allegation that Banerjee entered the premises and took away “key” evidence related to the probe.
What West Bengal govt told SC
Appearing for the Bengal government and DGP, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, sought to defend the commotion at Calcutta HC and said “sometimes emotions go out of hand.” Responding to him, the bench said, “Emotions cannot go out of hand repeatedly.”
