New Delhi â India's Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply questioned the West Bengal government regarding Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's alleged interference during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid at the I-PAC office in January 2026. The apex court called the situation "unusual" and "not a happy situation," while refusing the state's request to delay the ongoing hearing. Abench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria is hearing a petition from the ED that seeks a CBI probe against Banerjee and senior state police officials.[m+4]
ED Alleges Obstruction During January Raid
The case originates from an incident on January 8, 2026, when ED officials were conducting raids at the Kolkata office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain. The raids were part of a money laundering investigation connected to an alleged coal scam. The ED claims Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee "barged into" the premises during the search operations, allegedly obstructing their work and taking away electronic devices and documents.[siasat+2]
Mamata Banerjee has denied these accusations. She stated her presence at the I-PAC office and Pratik Jain's residence was solely to retrieve confidential and proprietary data belonging to her Trinamool Congress (TMC) party. Banerjee also accused the ED of acting with "mala fide intent" and carrying out politically motivated searches ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.[m+6]
Supreme Court Rejects State's Adjournment Plea
During the hearing on March 18, the Supreme Court firmly rejected West Bengal's plea for an adjournment. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the state, sought more time to respond to a new rejoinder affidavit filed by the ED. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, strongly opposed the request. Mehta argued that the state was using delay tactics, noting that the rejoinder had been filed four weeks earlier, giving ample time for a response.[m+7]
Justice Mishra, heading the bench, stated that the court would not be "dictated" on how to proceed. The bench decided to continue with the hearing, emphasizing that all records would be considered. This refusal underscored the court's intent to expedite the matter.[thestatesman+7]
Key Questions on Agency Powers
The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about the alleged interference by a Chief Minister in a central agency's investigation. Justice Mishra questioned the West Bengal government's counsel, asking if the ED was expected to be a "mere mute spectator" and only "look and watch" in such situations. The court further asked what remedy the ED would have if its statutory functions were obstructed. "If you argue that ED cannot file a plea... then there is no remedy (for ED)?" Justice Mishra asked.[m+8]
The bench stressed that a central investigative agency cannot be left without a legal remedy when its operations are interrupted. The judges also highlighted the need to avoid a "situation of lawlessness" and a "legal vacuum" in the state, emphasizing that the development of law is organic and new situations require judicial attention. "What if tomorrow some other chief minister barges into such a raid?" Justice Mishra pondered. "Can the ED be left without remedy?"[m+9]
West Bengal Challenges ED's Legal Standing
The West Bengal government, through Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, strongly challenged the maintainability of the ED's petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Divan argued that the ED, as a government department, is neither a "juristic" nor a "natural person." Therefore, he contended, the ED cannot claim a violation of its fundamental rights and lacks the legal standing to invoke Article 32 or Article 226 (High Court jurisdiction).[thefederal+6]
Divan submitted that allowing a central agency like the ED to file such a plea against a state would bypass established constitutional mechanisms for resolving disputes between the Union and states. He suggested that the appropriate legal recourse for such disputes would be under Article 131, which deals with original jurisdiction for disputes between the Government of India and states, and that the Union Government, not a department, should be the one to sue. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, also representing Mamata Banerjee, echoed these arguments.[m+7]
The state government also requested that the matter be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. This request was made on the grounds that the case involves "substantial questions involving the interpretation of the Constitution" concerning Centre-State relations and the admissibility of the ED's petition.[millenniumpost+4]
ED Counters "Terrorized" Claim
The Enforcement Directorate, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has maintained that its officials were "terrorized" in West Bengal. Mehta refuted allegations that the ED had "weaponized" its powers, stating instead that the agency itself was being "terrorized." He argued that the Chief Minister's actions constituted a direct interference in a federal investigation. The ED's petition specifically seeks directions for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register FIRs against Mamata Banerjee and senior police officials.[siasat+6]
The Supreme Court had previously issued notice on the ED's plea in January and stayed further proceedings in West Bengal FIRs lodged against ED officials. The court observed that the matter raised a serious issue requiring examination to prevent a possible "situation of lawlessness" in the state. It also directed the state to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic material related to the January 8 search.[thefederal+8]
The next hearing in this significant case is scheduled for March 24. The outcome could have broad implications for the dynamics between central investigative agencies and state governments in India.[livelaw+5]
