Supreme Court stays FIR-based probe against ED in I-PAC raid case

Kolkata: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the probe against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with FIRs lodged in West Bengal over raids at the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain while issuing notices on a plea filed by the ED against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain state police officers for allegedly obstructing the search operation.

The ED has sought a CBI probe against Banerjee and police officials, including Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Kolkata) Priyabrata Roy.

A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi stayed proceedings arising out of FIRs registered at Shakespeare Sarani Police Station and Electronics Complex Police Station in Bidhannagar. The court also directed the preservation of CCTV cameras and other devices containing footage from both premises, along with CCTV footage of nearby areas.

The Bench observed that the petition raised a “serious issue” concerning investigations by central agencies and alleged interference by state authorities. Emphasising “adherence to the rule of law”, the court said the issue required examination to ensure that offenders were not shielded by law enforcement agencies of a particular state.

The court noted that while central agencies have no authority to interfere with election-related work of political parties, the question arises whether agencies acting bona fide to probe serious offences can be obstructed under the cover of party activities.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that this was not the first instance of Banerjee allegedly obstructing a central agency with the aid of the police. He alleged that during the raids she entered the premises and removed incriminating material along with the mobile phone of an ED officer.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju claimed that the alleged acts amounted to theft, robbery and dacoity—cognisable offences requiring registration of FIRs.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Banerjee, said the panchnama prepared by the ED showed that the raid was conducted peacefully and no obstruction was caused, contradicting the agency’s claims in their petition. He also submitted that ED began raids at 6:45 am but local police was notified at 11:30 pm through e-mail. Banerjee entered Pratik Jain’s house at 12:05 pm and left at 12:15 pm.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the State of West Bengal and the DGP, and senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Kolkata Police Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner (South Kolkata), challenged the maintainability of the ED’s petition under Article 32, arguing that the Calcutta High Court was the appropriate forum.

The court directed that counter-affidavits be filed within two weeks and listed the matter for hearing on February 3.

Meanwhile, TMC leader Riju Dutta alleged that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was caught misleading the Supreme Court by claiming prior intimation was issued before ED search. He reiterated Sibal’s submission that search began at 6:45 am and and first intimation to police came at 11:30am. He claimed the raid was a fishing expedition, aimed at unlawfully accessing sensitive electoral data to sabotage 2026 polls.