The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), alleging interference by then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state police officials during search operations at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC). The case, rooted in a multi-crore money laundering probe linked to an alleged coal smuggling scam, has drawn sharp constitutional questions about the limits of executive authority during active federal investigations.

Background: The January 8 Searches

The dispute traces back to 8 January, when ED officials conducted search operations at the I-PAC Kolkata office and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain, as part of a money laundering investigation linked to an alleged coal smuggling scam. The ED has alleged that Banerjee, accompanied by police personnel and senior officials, entered the premises while searches were underway and interfered with the investigation. The agency has further alleged that its officials were obstructed and 'terrorised' during the searches.

What the ED Is Seeking

The federal agency has sought directions for registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) against Mamata Banerjee, the then Director General of Police (DGP), and the Kolkata Police Commissioner. It has also sought a transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Earlier, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, strongly rejected allegations that the agency had 'weaponised' its powers, submitting before the apex court: 'It has not been weaponised, it has been terrorised.'

Mamata Banerjee's Counter

In her counter-affidavit, Banerjee denied all allegations of obstruction, asserting that her presence at the premises was limited and solely aimed at retrieving confidential and proprietary data belonging to the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC). According to the affidavit, she had visited after receiving information that sensitive political data linked to the party's strategy for the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections was being accessed during the searches. The affidavit further claimed that ED officials had permitted retrieval of certain devices and documents, and that searches thereafter continued 'peacefully and in an orderly manner.'

Supreme Court's Observations So Far

The matter was earlier heard by a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, which had deferred proceedings after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED via video conferencing, sought an early listing. The Bench had previously made pointed oral observations, noting that alleged interference by a sitting Chief Minister during an ongoing investigation could place 'democracy in peril.' 'This is not per se a dispute between the State and the Union. This is, per se, an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister of a State, keeping the whole system and democracy in jeopardy,' the Bench had remarked. In an order passed on 15 January, the Supreme Court had stayed FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials and directed preservation of CCTV footage and other digital records from the searched premises.

Constitutional Questions at Stake

The then West Bengal government had also questioned the maintainability of the ED's writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the matter essentially concerns an inter-governmental dispute. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling is expected to clarify the boundaries of state executive authority when central investigative agencies are conducting searches — a question with significant implications for Centre-state relations across India.