In ED’s case in opposition to West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and others over the IPAC workplace search, Further Solicitor Basic SV Raju as we speak submitted earlier than the Supreme Courtroom that the company has been “terrorized”.
The comment was a response to a submission by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra that the company should justify its “weaponization”. “It [ED] has not been weaponized, it has been terrorized”, stated the ASG.
The Courtroom posted the case to March 18, noting Solicitor Basic Tushar Mehta’s submission that ED is more likely to file its rejoinder as we speak.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan was coping with the petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate beneath Article 32, in opposition to CM Mamata Banerjee and sure state cops, for allegedly obstructing its search of the workplace of I-PAC, the political marketing consultant of All India Trinamool Congress.
On the final date, the bench had issued discover on the petition and stayed additional proceedings in 3 FIRs lodged by West Bengal police in opposition to ED officers. It expressed that there was a severe challenge arising within the case, which required to be examined, else there can be a “scenario of lawlessness” within the state. The bench additionally directed the state to protect the CCTV cameras and different digital units containing the footage of the premises searched on January 8 and the close by areas.
Just lately, the state filed a counter-affidavit contesting maintainability of ED’s writ in view of the pendency of comparable proceedings earlier than the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom.
Background
The ED filed the current petition beneath Article 32 of the Structure impleading the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and others.
The plea adopted occasions which occurred when the ED officers carried out searches on January 8 on the workplace of I-PAC in Kolkata in reference to the coal rip-off cash laundering probe. In the course of the operation, CM Mamata Banerjee allegedly reached the I-PAC workplace together with senior social gathering leaders and confronted ED officers. The ED has additionally alleged that the Chief Minister took away sure information from the premises through the raid, which it claims additional impeded the investigation.
In line with the ED, the Chief Minister’s presence on the search web site and the alleged removing of paperwork had an intimidating impact on officers and critically compromised the company’s capacity to discharge its statutory capabilities independently. The company has alleged repeated obstruction and non-cooperation by the state administration.
The West Bengal police has additionally registered an FIR in opposition to ED officers. In its Article 32 petition earlier than the Supreme Courtroom, the ED has sought instructions for an impartial inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation, contending {that a} impartial central company is important in view of the alleged interference by the state government.
Previous to approaching the Supreme Courtroom, the ED moved the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom in relation to the identical incident, looking for safety and acceptable instructions. On January 14, the Excessive Courtroom disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress recording the assertion made by the ED that it has not seized something from the workplace of I-PAC or its director Prateek Jain.
Case Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026
