Supreme Court (SC) stays FIRs against ED officials and issues notice to Mamata Banerjee over alleged interference in I-PAC searches. Court orders CCTV preservation, flags serious constitutional concerns, and warns against lawlessness amid state-central investigation conflict.
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered by the West Bengal Police against officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with search operations conducted at the Kolkata premises of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain.
The apex court also issued notice to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state police officials, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing confrontation between central investigative agencies and the West Bengal government.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the petitions filed by the ED raise “serious issues” regarding alleged interference by state authorities in a central investigation. Taking note of the gravity of the allegations, the court issued notices to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, the Commissioner of Kolkata Police, and other concerned officials, seeking their responses to the ED’s claims.
The Supreme Court granted the respondents two weeks to file their counter-affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing on February 3. In the interim, the court stayed all FIRs lodged against ED officials in relation to the search operations carried out last week.
In a crucial direction aimed at preserving evidence, the apex court ordered that all CCTV footage and other electronic storage devices containing recordings of the searched premises, as well as the surrounding areas, be preserved until the next date of hearing. This move underscores the court’s concern about the integrity of evidence amid allegations of obstruction and interference.
The ED, India’s central anti-money laundering agency, approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent judicial intervention, claiming that its officials were prevented from performing their statutory duties during coordinated search operations at I-PAC’s office and Pratik Jain’s residence. According to the ED, resistance from state authorities disrupted the searches and compromised the investigation.
The court noted that, prima facie, the matter involves serious questions relating to the conduct of investigations by a central agency and the alleged role of the state government in interfering with those investigations. Stressing the importance of constitutional balance and rule of law, the Bench warned that allowing such disputes to remain unresolved could lead to a situation of “lawlessness” in one or more states.
The ED has alleged that during the searches, its officers faced obstruction and were unable to carry out lawful procedures due to interference by the West Bengal Police. The agency further claimed that such actions undermined the autonomy of central investigative bodies and posed a threat to the federal structure envisaged under the Constitution.
In a fresh application filed before the Supreme Court, the ED has sought action against senior West Bengal Police officials, including the Director General of Police, alleging that they acted in coordination with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to obstruct the investigation. The agency has also alleged that the state machinery facilitated the possible removal or destruction of evidence during the search operations.
The legal confrontation comes against the backdrop of long-standing tensions between the Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government and central investigative agencies such as the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation. The state government has repeatedly accused central agencies of acting with political motives, while the agencies maintain that they are conducting investigations strictly in accordance with the law.
| Also Read: ED action against I-PAC sparks major political clash in Bengal |
While the Supreme Court did not make any final observations on the merits of the allegations, its interim order reflects concern over the broader implications of state-central conflicts in criminal investigations. The court’s emphasis on evidence preservation and adherence to due process highlights the judiciary’s role in maintaining institutional balance.
The case is expected to have far-reaching implications, not only for the ongoing investigation involving I-PAC but also for future interactions between state governments and central enforcement agencies. All eyes will now be on the February 3 hearing, when the Supreme Court is likely to examine the responses filed by the West Bengal government and senior police officials.
