‘Why…just before elections?’: In Supreme Court, Mamata govt flags timing of ED raid on I-PAC office | LIVE updates

ED versus Mamata Banerjee in Supreme Court: On Thursday, 15 January, Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee and Trinamool Congress (TMC), asked, “Why was the need to start this just before elections. This is in your petition that the last statement was recorded in February 2024”, during the Supreme Court hearing on plea by Enforcement Directorate accusing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State officials of interfering with the central agency's investigation and search operations at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder, Pratik Jain.

The Enforcement Directorate told the Supreme Court on Thursday that the West Bengal government's "interference and obstruction", including by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in its probe and search operation at the I-PAC office and its chief's residence reflects a very shocking pattern.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi that in the past also, whenever statutory authorities exercised statutory power, Banerjee barged in and interfered.

"It reflects a very shocking pattern," Mehta said while contending 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.

The ED's plea in the apex court follows events from January 8, when ED's officials faced obstructions during the probe agency's raids at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC in Salt Lake and the residence of its chief, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata in connection with a coal smuggling case.

The probe agency has claimed that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee entered the premises and took away "key" evidence related to the probe.

The chief minister has accused the central agency of overreach, while her party, Trinamool Congress, has denied the ED's allegation of "obstructing" its probe. The state's police have registered an FIR against ED officers.

ED v. Mamata Banerjee hearing in the Supreme Court:

Subject of Hearing: The Supreme Court heard a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Primary Allegation: The ED alleged that CM Mamata Banerjee and state officials obstructed its search and raid operations at the office of the political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain, on January 8, 2026.

Seizure of Evidence: The agency claimed that the Chief Minister and her associates forcibly took away seized documents and electronic material (including laptops) from the premises during the raid.

Serious Charges: The ED's petition accused the CM and top police officials (including the DGP and Kolkata Police Commissioner) of committing offences such as dacoity, robbery, theft, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Reason for Moving SC: The ED submitted that it approached the Supreme Court because the Calcutta High Court was unable to hear the matter effectively due to "heavy crowding and commotion" and disruptions in the courtroom.

Target of Investigation: The raids were part of an ongoing money laundering investigation into an alleged coal smuggling scam, which the ED claims the state machinery is trying to derail.

High Court Context: The thread noted that the Calcutta High Court had adjourned the ED's plea the previous day (Jan 14) after being informed that the agency had moved the Supreme Court.

TMC's Counter-Plea: It was mentioned that the High Court had disposed of a separate plea by the Trinamool Congress (TMC)—which sought protection of sensitive political data—after the ED stated it had not seized any such data (claiming it was taken by the CM instead).

State's Caveat: The West Bengal government had filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to prevent any ex-parte order being passed against them without a hearing.