The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a significant petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, alleging her interference and obstruction during search operations at the offices of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and its director, Pratik Jain. The ED's investigation is part of a larger money laundering probe connected to an alleged coal smuggling scam that originated from a CBI FIR in November 2020. The central agency claims that during the raids, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the I-PAC premises, confronted ED officials, and allegedly took away crucial files and electronic devices, thereby impeding the investigation. The ED has sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Mamata Banerjee and several high-ranking state police officers, including DGP Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and South Kolkata Dy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy, for their alleged involvement in obstructing justice. Additionally, the ED has sought the suspension and disciplinary action against these police officials. Earlier, the Calcutta High Court dealt with related petitions. It disposed of a plea filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC), which sought protection for its confidential political data, after the ED explicitly stated that it had not seized any documents or devices from the I-PAC premises. The ED's counsel further submitted to the High Court that it was CM Mamata Banerjee who had illegally seized the materials. The Calcutta High Court, however, adjourned the ED's petition seeking a CBI probe, noting that similar issues are now pending before the Supreme Court. I-PAC, or Indian Political Action Committee, is a well-known political consultancy firm that has worked with various political parties across India, including the TMC, to strategize for elections. The West Bengal government has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, ensuring that no order is passed without hearing their side of the argument. This case highlights a significant legal and political confrontation between a central agency and a state government, with crucial implications for India's federal structure and law enforcement.