I-PAC raid row: SC to hear ED plea against Mamata Banerjee on May 22
Synopsis
The Supreme Court will hear the ED's explosive plea on May 22, accusing then West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee of personally entering the I-PAC office during an active money laundering search — a charge that prompted the court itself to warn that such conduct could place 'democracy in peril'.
Key Takeaways
Supreme Court adjourned the ED plea against Mamata Banerjee to May 22 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought early listing.
The case relates to ED search operations on 8 January at the I-PAC office in Kolkata , linked to an alleged coal smuggling money laundering probe.
The ED has sought FIRs against Mamata Banerjee , the then DGP , and the Kolkata Police Commissioner , and transfer of the probe to the CBI .
Mamata Banerjee denied obstruction in her counter-affidavit, stating she visited to retrieve confidential Trinamool Congress (TMC) data related to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections .
The Supreme Court had on 15 January stayed FIRs filed by West Bengal Police against ED officials and ordered preservation of CCTV footage and digital records.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned to May 22 the hearing on 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 adjournment came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED via video conferencing, pressed for an early listing rather than risk the matter being pushed to July.
Background: The January 8 Raids
The case stems from ED search operations conducted on 8 January at the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain, in connection with a multi-crore money laundering probe linked to an alleged coal smuggling scam. The federal anti-money laundering agency has alleged that Mamata Banerjee, accompanied by police personnel and senior officials, entered both premises while searches were underway and interfered with the investigation.
What the ED Is Seeking
The ED has sought directions for registration of FIRs against Mamata Banerjee, the then Director General of Police (DGP), and the Kolkata Police Commissioner. It has also sought transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju strongly refuted allegations that the ED had misused its powers, submitting:
Point of View
And it deserves more scrutiny than it has received. The ED's demand for CBI transfer is a familiar escalation tactic, but the court's language signals it is treating this as a constitutional question, not merely a procedural dispute. Mamata Banerjee's defence — that she entered the premises solely to protect TMC electoral data — raises its own uncomfortable question: does a Chief Minister's political interest override the sanctity of a federal search operation? The answer the Supreme Court gives on May 22 will set a precedent that cuts both ways, constraining state executives while also testing the limits of central agency reach.
NationPress
14 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the I-PAC raid case before the Supreme Court?
The case involves an ED plea alleging that then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior police officials interfered with search operations conducted on 8 January at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC, in connection with a multi-crore money laundering probe linked to an alleged coal smuggling scam. The Supreme Court has now scheduled the next hearing for May 22.
What is the ED seeking in its Supreme Court plea?
The ED is seeking directions for registration of FIRs against Mamata Banerjee, the then West Bengal DGP, and the Kolkata Police Commissioner. It has also sought transfer of the money laundering investigation to the CBI.
What did Mamata Banerjee say in her counter-affidavit?
Mamata Banerjee denied allegations of obstruction, stating her presence at the premises was limited to retrieving confidential and proprietary data belonging to the Trinamool Congress related to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections. Her affidavit also claimed that ED officials permitted retrieval of certain devices and that searches continued peacefully thereafter.
What action did the Supreme Court take on 15 January?
On 15 January, the Supreme Court stayed FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches and directed preservation of CCTV footage and other digital records from the searched premises.
Why did the Supreme Court warn about democracy being in peril?
During an earlier hearing, the Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra-led Bench orally observed that alleged interference by a sitting Chief Minister in an ongoing investigation was not merely a Centre-state dispute but an individual act that could place the entire system and democracy in jeopardy. The remark was made in the context of the ED's allegation that its officials were obstructed and 'terrorised' during the searches.
