Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Mamata Banerjee's Alleged Interference in ED Investigation

Supreme Court's Strong Remarks on Political Interference

New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressed serious concerns regarding West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's alleged interference in an ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), suggesting that such actions could jeopardize democracy. The court emphasized that this situation should not be dismissed as merely a conflict between state and central authorities.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria was reviewing petitions from the ED, which sought the registration of a CBI FIR against Banerjee and senior officials of the West Bengal Police for purportedly obstructing search operations at the political consultancy firm I-PAC's office in Kolkata.

During the proceedings, the court voiced its disapproval of the alleged actions, stating that a Chief Minister's involvement in an investigation could threaten the democratic process.

Justice Mishra remarked, "When any Chief Minister intervenes in an inquiry, it places democracy at risk. Can one argue that this is merely a dispute between the State and the Centre?"

The bench appeared unconvinced by the argument that the matter could be classified as a federal issue.

"This is not simply a disagreement between the State and the Union. It is an action taken by an individual, the Chief Minister, that endangers the entire democratic framework," the court added.

Senior advocate Meneka Guruswamy, representing the state police officials, challenged the ED's petition under Article 32, arguing that such a writ is intended for individuals, not government entities, and suggested that the matter should be addressed under Article 131 as an inter-governmental dispute.

She characterized the case as presenting a "unique legal question."

However, the bench remained skeptical, indicating that merely raising a legal question does not warrant referring every case to a larger bench.

"Every petition contains some legal question. That does not imply that all Article 32 petitions should be escalated to a five-judge bench," the Supreme Court stated.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government, argued that the ED could not invoke Article 32 based on alleged violations of fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court was considering multiple petitions stemming from allegations that ED officials faced obstruction during searches conducted earlier this year. The federal anti-money laundering agency is seeking directives for FIR registrations and the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.

In a ruling issued on January 15, the Supreme Court had suspended the FIRs filed by the West Bengal Police against ED officials related to the searches and mandated the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital records from the searched locations.

In her counter-affidavit, Chief Minister Banerjee refuted all claims of interference, asserting that her presence at the site was solely to recover confidential data belonging to her party, the Trinamool Congress.

According to the affidavit, Banerjee visited the residences of Pratik Jain and I-PAC's office on January 8, 2026, after learning that sensitive political information was being accessed during the searches.

She maintained that the data was "crucially linked to the AITC's strategy for the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections."

The affidavit stated that upon her arrival, she "politely requested the ED officials to allow her to retrieve the Party's data and the devices on which it was stored."

It further claimed that the ED officers present did not object to her request and allowed her to take some devices and files.

"After completing this, the Chief Minister left the premises to avoid causing any inconvenience to the ED officials," the counter-affidavit noted, adding that the ED's own records indicated that the searches continued smoothly thereafter.

Banerjee also contended that neither the Trinamool Congress nor its officials are implicated in the alleged coal scam, thus the ED has no right to the party's proprietary data.

The counter-affidavit accused the ED of acting with malicious intent, alleging that the searches were conducted in the lead-up to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections and followed a prolonged period of inactivity.

It questioned the timing of the operations, asserting that they coincided with I-PAC holding "critical documents," including a proposed candidate list for the upcoming elections.

Claiming violations of statutory protections under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the affidavit also pointed out that the ED failed to provide any audio or video evidence of the searches, suggesting a "strong presumption" that the searches were conducted covertly to access confidential political information.