I-PAC Row Escalates As ED To Challenge Calcutta High Court Deferment In Supreme Court

The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Supreme Court with an Article 32 petition, alleging that the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee blocked its probe in the I-PAC coal scam case and seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry into events during recent search operations.

In the petition, the Enforcement Directorate claimed its "right to conduct a fair and independent investigation has been curtailed by the state machinery". The agency argued that this alleged interference struck at the core of its powers under central law and asked the Supreme Court to safeguard its ability to investigate financial crime in the state.

ED I-PAC coal scam case raids and alleged 'showdown’

The Enforcement Directorate has described a detailed chain of events from the searches at premises tied to political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata, calling the confrontation a "showdown". According to the agency, state officials blocked officers from completing lawful searches and from seizing documents and digital devices that the team said were linked to the coal smuggling investigation.

The petition stated that physical files and electronic equipment were forcibly taken away from the I-PAC office while Enforcement Directorate personnel watched, and that senior West Bengal government officers were present during this removal. The central agency said these actions undermined its control over potential evidence gathered in the I-PAC coal scam case.

The Enforcement Directorate told the court that I-PAC has worked on election strategy for the Trinamool Congress under Mamata Banerjee. Investigators alleged that proceeds of crime worth nearly Rs 10 crore were channelled to I-PAC through hawala networks, and said these funds were linked to payments for consultancy services during the 2022 Goa Assembly elections.

ED I-PAC coal scam case legal battle in courts

The stand-off at I-PAC locations triggered a wider confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate and the Trinamool Congress-led administration. The agency told the Supreme Court that police and other state authorities interfered with central officers, which it said amounted to obstruction of justice and damaged the integrity of the I-PAC coal scam case investigation.

Before the Enforcement Directorate approached the Supreme Court, the West Bengal government had already filed a caveat there. A caveat is a request asking the court not to pass any order without hearing the caveator. The state said it wanted to ensure its version would be considered before any interim relief went to the central agency.

Meanwhile, on the judicial side in West Bengal, the Enforcement Directorate had gone to the Calcutta High Court on Friday. The agency asked for registration of an FIR against Mamata Banerjee for allegedly "obstructing" its search operations. A single-judge bench and then a division bench headed by the acting Chief Justice adjourned the matter, putting off hearings until after January 14.

Trinamool Congress and I-PAC then submitted counter-petitions before the Calcutta High Court, strongly challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s narrative in the I-PAC coal scam case. The party said that materials taken from the I-PAC office related only to poll planning and campaign strategy work, which it argued lay outside the reach of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Trinamool Congress leaders accused the Enforcement Directorate of trying to access sensitive political information under the cover of a money laundering probe. Separately, the family of I-PAC chief Pratik Jain filed complaints alleging that important documents were stolen during the raids. The Enforcement Directorate dismissed these claims and maintained that officers followed due process and acted within legal limits at every stage.

With the matter now before the Supreme Court, the clash over the I-PAC coal scam case has shifted to the country’s highest judicial forum. The Enforcement Directorate has urged the court to step in, warning that without clear judicial backing, central investigators may struggle to work independently in states where they allege strong institutional pushback.