Interference in Central probe ‘serious issue’: SC stays WB police FIR against ED, issues notice to Mamata Banerjee

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officials, alleging obstruction of the agency’s search at the Kolkata office of I-PAC, the political consultancy associated with the All India Trinamool Congress.

A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi described the matter as a “very serious issue” requiring the Court’s consideration. The bench observed that, at first glance, the petition raises grave concerns about interference by state agencies in investigations conducted by the ED and other central agencies. It noted that, in the interest of upholding the rule of law and ensuring the independent functioning of institutions, the issue warrants examination so that offenders are not shielded by state law enforcement machinery. The Court cautioned that leaving such questions unresolved could aggravate the situation and lead to lawlessness in states governed by different political parties. While acknowledging that central agencies have no authority to interfere with election-related activities, the bench said the key question was whether bona fide investigations into serious offences could be impeded under the pretext of political party work.

Accordingly, notices were issued to the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and South Kolkata Deputy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy on the ED’s writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The ED has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged obstruction of its functioning. The respondents have been granted two weeks to file counter-affidavits, and the matter is listed for further consideration on February 3.

The Court also directed the respondents to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic records relating to the premises searched on January 8, as well as footage from nearby areas. In addition, it stayed further proceedings in the three FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials.

As the matter was taken up, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the episode as reflecting a “shocking pattern,” asserting that similar attempts to obstruct central agencies had occurred in the past involving the West Bengal Chief Minister. When Justice Mishra questioned the maintainability of the petition, the Solicitor General explained that one plea had been jointly filed by the ED and an officer personally aggrieved, while another had been filed by ED officers in their individual capacities.

The Solicitor General submitted that based on evidence indicating the presence of incriminating material, ED officers exercised their powers under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and conducted searches after informing the local police. He alleged that the Chief Minister, accompanied by the DGP and a large police contingent, entered the premises, removed files and electronic devices, and thereby obstructed the investigation. According to him, such conduct amounted to theft and, if condoned, would demoralise investigative officers. He added that the ED had also sought directions for the suspension of police officials who accompanied the Chief Minister, arguing that under Section 54 of the PMLA, the police are required to assist the ED rather than hinder it.

Referring to an earlier standoff between the West Bengal government and the CBI, the Solicitor General recalled that CBI officers were arrested by the state police after attempting to question the then Kolkata Police Commissioner, now the DGP, and that the Chief Minister had staged a protest outside the CBI office at the time.

He further told the Court that the Calcutta High Court had recently adjourned the ED’s plea after a commotion erupted in the courtroom, which he alleged was deliberately orchestrated by members of the ruling party. He claimed that WhatsApp messages from the party’s legal wing had called on members to gather, prompting the High Court to issue a circular restricting entry to authorised persons ahead of the next hearing. He also informed the bench that the state police had since registered three FIRs against ED officials.

When Justice Mishra asked why the ED had gone to the I-PAC office, the Solicitor General clarified that the search was connected to the coal scam money laundering investigation. He pointed out that I-PAC itself had not filed any petition challenging the search.

Appearing for the State of West Bengal and the DGP, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised objections to the maintainability of the Article 32 petition, arguing that if notice was issued, it should be subject to the state’s right to raise preliminary objections. He also alleged forum shopping, noting that the ED had initiated parallel proceedings before both the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court. Responding to the bench’s concern over the courtroom disturbance, Singhvi said he shared the Court’s concern but emphasised that the subsequent hearing had proceeded smoothly and that a single incident should not lead to assumptions about future proceedings.

Singhvi further submitted that the panchnama recorded the search as having been conducted peacefully. However, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju pointed out that the panchnama also noted that certain materials were taken into possession by the Chief Minister. Singhvi countered the ED’s claim of prior intimation to the police by stating that while the search began at 6 a.m., the email communication was sent only at 11.30 a.m. He said the Chief Minister went to the site after receiving information that unauthorised persons were attempting to access materials, and claimed that the ED officials initially refused to identify themselves. He added that police personnel accompanied her as she is a Z+ protectee.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing police officers Manoj Kumar Verma and Priyabatra Roy, argued that the ED should pursue its remedies before the Calcutta High Court.

In the connected petition filed by ED officers, ASG SV Raju submitted that the admitted facts disclosed at least the offence of theft and went on to allege that offences of robbery and dacoity had been committed, given the presence of more than five armed persons. He sought directions for the registration of an FIR and a CBI investigation, along with a stay on the FIRs lodged by the state police against ED officials.

Background
The ED’s petition arises from searches conducted earlier this month at the I-PAC office in Kolkata in connection with the coal scam money laundering case. The agency has alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the premises with senior party leaders during the operation, confronted ED officials and removed certain files, thereby impeding the investigation and creating an intimidating atmosphere. The ED has also accused the state administration of repeated obstruction and lack of cooperation.

Before approaching the Supreme Court, the ED had moved the Calcutta High Court seeking protection and directions. On Monday, the High Court disposed of a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress after recording the ED’s statement that it had not seized any material from the I-PAC office or from its director, Prateek Jain.(with Live Law inputs)