I-PAC Raid Row: ED Tells SC it has Been ‘Terrorised’ in Bengal

NEW DELHI:
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has been “terrorised” in West Bengal, as the apex court adjourned hearing on its plea accusing the state government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of interfering in 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.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the federal anti-money laundering agency, strongly refuted the submission that the ED had “weaponised” its powers.

The remarks came after senior advocate Siddharth Luthra contended that the ED must justify the “weaponisation” of its authority.

“It (ED) has not been weaponised, it has been terrorised,” ASG Raju said.

After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, stated that the ED is likely to file its rejoinder during the day, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan posted the matter for further hearing on March 18.

The hearing was adjourned last week following a request made due to the ill health of senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

During the brief hearing, SG Mehta, representing the ED, informed the apex court that he had been apprised about Sibal’s inability to appear.

“I can’t oppose on this ground. If it can be kept on 18th February,” the Centre’s second-highest law officer submitted.

Acceding to the request, the Justice Mishra-led Bench had deferred the matter for further hearing on February 18.

The ED has approached the top court seeking directions to register FIRs against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the state Director General of Police (DGP), and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, alleging obstruction of lawful duties during the federal agency’s simultaneous search operations.

In her counter-affidavit, Chief Minister Banerjee has denied all allegations of interference and obstruction, asserting that her limited presence on the premises was solely to retrieve confidential and proprietary data belonging to her Trinamool Congress (AITC).

According to the affidavit, CM Banerjee visited Pratik Jain’s residence at Loudon Street and I-PAC’s office in Bidhannagar on January 8, 2026, after receiving information that sensitive political data of the Trinamool was being accessed during the searches. She maintained that the data was “vitally linked to the AITC’s strategy for the upcoming Legislative Assembly election”.

The affidavit stated that when she reached the premises, she “politely requested the officials of the Enforcement Directorate to be allowed to retrieve the Party’s data and the devices they were stored in and files containing prints of the same”.

It further claimed that “the officers of the Enforcement Directorate present thereat did not object to this request and permitted her to retrieve some of these devices and physical files”.

“After she had done so, the Answering Respondent (CM Banerjee) left the premises so as not to inconvenience the officials of the Enforcement Directorate in any way,” the counter affidavit said, adding that the ED’s own panchnamas record that the searches continued thereafter and were conducted “peacefully and in an orderly manner”.

CM Banerjee has also argued that neither the Trinamool nor its officials are accused in the alleged coal scam, and therefore, the ED cannot claim any right to the party’s proprietary data.

The counter affidavit has further accused the ED of acting with mala fide intent, alleging that the searches were carried out in the run-up to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections and after a prolonged period of inaction.

It has questioned the timing of the operations, claiming they coincided with I-PAC possessing “critical documents”, including a proposed list of candidates for the upcoming polls.

Alleging violations of statutory safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the affidavit also states that the ED failed to produce any audio or video recordings of the searches. This, it claimed, raises a “strong presumption” that the searches were clandestine and aimed at accessing confidential political data.

Earlier, on January 15, the Supreme Court had stayed the FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, and had also directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital storage devices containing recordings of the searched premises and the surrounding areas.