New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate accusing the West Bengal government and police machinery of obstructing lawful search operations during raids conducted at the I PAC headquarters and the residence of its director in Kolkata on January 8. The court described the allegations as serious and warranting close scrutiny.
The agency alleged that the situation in the state reflected a complete breakdown of democratic norms, claiming that senior police officials accompanied Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to the raid locations and interfered with the searches. It was further alleged that incriminating documents and digital evidence connected to an illegal coal smuggling network were forcibly removed during the operation.
The ED submitted a fresh application seeking the suspension of senior police officials, including the Director General of Police, alleging that they actively assisted in disrupting the searches. According to the agency, police officers were present at the sites not to maintain order but to protest the searches alongside political leaders.
The agency maintained that the searches were conducted under statutory powers provided by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and that local police had been informed in advance. It alleged that files and electronic devices were taken away from officers during the operation, including an official mobile phone, calling the act unlawful and damaging to institutional authority. The ED argued that such actions would demoralise central agencies and set a dangerous precedent.
The agency also rejected claims that the searches were aimed at accessing political data, asserting that the case involved a large scale coal smuggling operation valued at over Rs 2,700 crore with an identified hawala channel. It stated that the consulting firm itself had not lodged any complaint regarding the searches.
Representing the Chief Minister, senior counsel questioned the timing of the raids ahead of Assembly elections and argued that the firm handled election related work for the ruling party. It was contended that the agency acted with mala fide intent and that only specific devices containing party related data were taken to prevent misuse.
The state government challenged the maintainability of the ED’s petition, arguing that such relief is permissible only in exceptional situations. Heated exchanges were also witnessed between senior lawyers, with both sides accusing investigative agencies and legal representatives of selectively sharing information with the media.
