Mamata Banerjee Allegedly Seized ED Officer’s Mobile During Kolkata I-PAC Search: Agency to SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday heared the Enforcement Directorate’s plea against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over alleged interference in raids at the I-PAC office and Pratik Jain’s home in Kolkata on January 8. The agency claims Banerjee and senior police officers disrupted searches linked to a money-laundering investigation tied to an alleged coal smuggling scam.

Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the conduct of the Chief Minister and top state officials during the January 8 searches struck at the core of an ongoing federal investigation. The plea before the Supreme Court seeks judicial directions on the alleged obstruction and demands action against West Bengal police personnel present during the raids.

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: ED version of January 8 raids

The Enforcement Directorate states that its teams reached the premises of I-PAC and Pratik Jain in Kolkata on January 8 as part of a money-laundering probe into an alleged multi-crore coal-pilferage scam. During these searches, according to the ED, Mamata Banerjee arrived with senior Trinamool Congress leaders, confronted officers and removed materials from the I-PAC office.

In its plea, the Enforcement Directorate alleges that Banerjee entered the search locations and took away "key" evidence, including physical records and electronic devices, from I-PAC premises. The federal agency claims these actions amounted to obstruction and interference with the investigation, and that they weakened the legal custody of materials gathered during the operation.

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: timeline and earlier legal moves

Before turning to the Supreme Court, the Enforcement Directorate approached the Calcutta High Court on January 9. In that petition, the agency sought a Central Bureau of Investigation probe against Mamata Banerjee, alleging that the Trinamool Congress chief, with help from police, removed incriminating documents from ED possession during the raid at Pratik Jain’s residence.

The sequence of events around the January 8 raids and later court actions can be set out as follows:

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: SG Mehta’s allegations

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the Chief Minister, the Director General of Police, the Police Commissioner and the area Deputy Commissioner reached the spot despite advance information to local police about the searches. Mehta alleged that these officials had no authority to seize any materials already under ED control during the operation.

According to Mehta, Enforcement Directorate officers had concrete reasons to believe that incriminating documents and devices were present at the I-PAC office and Pratik Jain’s residence. Mehta alleged that some of this material was taken away by state officials without lawful power, and described this as a crime of theft. He further claimed that an ED officer’s mobile phone was also taken.

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: impact on officers and prior incidents

Mehta told the bench that Mamata Banerjee addressed the media from the search site, which, according to the ED, intensified pressure on officers. The agency’s plea states that the presence of the Chief Minister and the alleged removal of documents created an intimidating environment, undermining the Enforcement Directorate’s ability to carry out statutory duties independently.

The Solicitor General argued that such episodes could discourage central officers from performing their work in politically sensitive matters. He reminded the court of an earlier incident, where the house of a Joint Director of the CBI was gheraoed and stones were reportedly thrown. Mehta said these patterns showed a wider problem for central investigations in West Bengal.

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: demands for action and state’s caveat

Mehta urged the Supreme Court to issue firm directions, stating that the court should set an example to prevent similar incidents. He asked for suspension of officers who were present during the raids and sought a departmental inquiry against them. Justice Mishra then questioned whether the court should be ordering such suspensions directly at this stage.

The Enforcement Directorate has also complained of repeated obstruction and lack of cooperation from the state administration. It has asked the Supreme Court for directions enabling an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, arguing that a neutral central agency is required because of alleged "interference" by the state executive in the coal scam probe.

While the ED pursues these remedies, the West Bengal government has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court linked to the I-PAC raids. Through the caveat, the state has requested that no order be passed in the matter without hearing its side. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Kalyan Banerjee are representing the state government in the proceedings.

The Trinamool Congress has denied the Enforcement Directorate’s claims of obstruction and has alleged that the agency’s move against I-PAC, its election consultancy firm, targeted confidential campaign strategy material. The West Bengal Police has also lodged an FIR against ED officials over the January 8 events. The Supreme Court’s handling of the case will shape the next steps for both the federal probe and the state government.