Supreme Court to hear ED plea against Mamata today
ED alleges its officials were obstructed during searches, facing resistance that prevented them from performing duties legally and effectively.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Thursday, January 15, a high-profile petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which alleges that its recent simultaneous raids at the office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain, were obstructed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The case has quickly become a focal point of legal and political attention, drawing scrutiny for its potential implications on governance, electoral politics, and the functioning of Central investigative agencies.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi is set to hear the matter later in the day, according to the causelist published on the Supreme Court’s official website. The ED’s petition seeks urgent judicial intervention, asserting that its officials faced resistance during the search operations, which allegedly prevented them from carrying out their duties in accordance with the law. The agency has also claimed that interference by West Bengal authorities compromised the integrity of its ongoing investigation, raising serious questions about adherence to legal protocols in sensitive enforcement operations.
Anticipating the ED’s move, the West Bengal government had already filed a caveat before the apex court, requesting that no order be passed without hearing the state’s version. The caveat serves to ensure that the court considers the state government’s perspective before granting any interim relief to the Central agency, highlighting the tension between state authorities and the central investigative body.
The matter has also been addressed in the Calcutta High Court, where a petition accused Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of allegedly misusing her constitutional position to create obstacles for Central agency officials carrying out their lawful duties. In addition to this petition, two other counter-petitions have been filed—one by Pratik Jain himself and the other by the Trinamool Congress. These filings underscore the highly contested and politically sensitive nature of the dispute, which touches upon questions of law, authority, and electoral influence.
In its counter-petition, the Trinamool Congress has argued that I-PAC serves as the voter-strategy agency for the party, suggesting that the ED raid was intended to seize documents related to the party’s preparations for the 2026 Assembly elections. The party has further alleged that the seized information could be shared with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), raising concerns about potential political misuse of investigative powers.
The ED, on the other hand, maintains that the raid was a legitimate part of its anti-money laundering investigation and that any obstruction to its officials was a violation of legal norms. According to the agency, the interference not only hindered their operations but also risked undermining the credibility of the investigation itself. Officials claim that ensuring their autonomy and access during raids is critical for maintaining public confidence in the legal process, particularly in cases involving high-profile entities like I-PAC.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is now being closely watched across the country, as it will determine how disputes between state governments and central investigative agencies are navigated in the context of sensitive political cases. Legal experts suggest that the case could set important precedents regarding the balance of power between state and central authorities, especially when it comes to the operational freedom of agencies like the ED.
Meanwhile, political observers note that the case has added a layer of complexity to the ongoing electoral narrative in West Bengal and beyond. With elections approaching, parties are increasingly attentive to how legal proceedings intersect with political strategy, voter mobilization, and campaign planning. The clash between the ED and the Mamata Banerjee-led government underscores the growing intersection of law enforcement, politics, and electoral strategy in India’s vibrant democracy.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the petitions, all eyes are on the apex court to see how it addresses the competing claims of legality, authority, and political accountability. Whatever the outcome, the proceedings are expected to have far-reaching implications, not just for the immediate parties involved, but also for the broader framework of federal-state relations and the functioning of investigative agencies in politically sensitive contexts.