I-PAC Raids Row: Supreme Court Defers Hearing On ED Plea Alleging Interference By Mamata Banerjee

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to February 10 the hearing on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleging interference by the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during recent search operations at the office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi deferred the matter after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, sought time to file a response to the counter affidavit submitted by the West Bengal government earlier in the day.

The Centre’s second-highest law officer told the Apex Court that the response was received only on Tuesday and the Central agency required time to examine it and place its rejoinder on record. Accepting the request, the Justice Mishra-led Bench posted the matter for further hearing on February 10.

ED Seeks FIRs Against CM, Top Police Officials

In its petition, the ED has sought directions for registration of FIRs against CM Mamata Banerjee, the state Director General of Police (DGP), and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, alleging obstruction of lawful duties during the agency’s simultaneous search operations.

In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court stayed the FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, observing that the petitions raised serious questions of alleged interference by state agencies in a central investigation.

Issuing notice to the Chief Minister and senior police officials, the Bench had granted them two weeks to file their counter-affidavits and listed the matter for February 3.

Court Flags ‘Serious Issue’ Of Interference

In its interim order, the Top Court also directed preservation of CCTV footage and other digital storage devices containing recordings of the searched premises and surrounding areas, noting that, prima facie, the petitions raised “a serious issue relating to the investigations by the Directorate of Enforcement or other Central Agencies and its interference by State Agencies”.

It warned that leaving such issues undecided could lead to a situation of ‘lawlessness’ in one or more states.

SG Mehta had described the incident as a case where ‘mobocracy replaces democracy,’ alleging ED officials were intimidated and prevented from discharging their lawful duties.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government, objected to the maintainability of the ED’s petition, alleging forum shopping and arguing that adequate remedies were available before the Calcutta High Court, where similar prayers were already pending.

Also Read: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused In Pune Porsche Blood Sample Swap Case