ED vs. Mamata: Supreme Court Hears 'Weaponised' vs. 'Terrorised' Claims

The Supreme Court of India recently witnessed a contentious exchange during the hearing of a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and state police officials. The central investigative agency alleges obstruction of its search operations conducted at the Kolkata office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), a political consultancy associated with the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), in connection with a money laundering probe linked to an alleged coal pilferage scam. During the proceedings on February 18, 2026, counsels representing the West Bengal government contended that the ED had been 'weaponised,' implying that the agency was being used as a tool for political vendetta. In a sharp rebuttal, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, refuted this claim, asserting instead that the agency had been 'terrorised' in West Bengal. The remark highlighted the ED's allegations of significant interference and intimidation by state authorities. The genesis of this legal battle dates back to January 8, when ED officials conducted searches at the I-PAC office. The ED claims that during these operations, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly arrived at the search site along with senior party leaders, confronted the ED officials, and removed 'key' evidence, including physical documents and electronic devices. The agency argued that her presence and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on its officers, severely compromising their ability to discharge statutory functions independently and hindering the ongoing investigation. Conversely, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, in a counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, vehemently denied all allegations of interference and obstruction. She maintained that her presence at the I-PAC premises was solely to retrieve confidential and proprietary data belonging to the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). Furthermore, she claimed that the ED officials present at the site did not object to her request and permitted her to retrieve these devices and files. Banerjee also argued that neither the Trinamool Congress nor its officials are accused in the alleged coal scam, and therefore, the ED cannot claim any right to the party's proprietary data as part of a 'roving and fishing enquiry.' The TMC has further accused the ED of acting with mala fide intent, suggesting that the searches were politically motivated and timed to disrupt their electoral preparations ahead of the upcoming West Bengal Assembly elections, especially given I-PAC's alleged possession of 'critical documents,' including a proposed list of candidates. The party also raised concerns about alleged violations of statutory safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), pointing to the absence of audio or video recordings of the searches, which it termed a 'strong presumption of clandestine action.' Taking cognizance of the gravity of the matter, the Supreme Court, in an earlier hearing on January 15, deemed the allegations of obstruction by the Chief Minister as 'very serious.' The bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, agreed to examine the broader constitutional question of whether a state's law-enforcing agencies can interfere with a central agency's probe into serious offenses, warning that failure to address this issue could lead to a 'situation of lawlessness' in the state. The court had also previously stayed three First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the West Bengal police against ED officials and directed the state police to preserve CCTV footage and other electronic devices containing recordings of the searched premises and surrounding areas. The ED's petition before the Supreme Court, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, notably seeks directions for an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged obstruction, citing repeated interference and non-cooperation from the state government. After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court adjourned the matter for further hearing to March 18, 2026, noting that the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta would be filing the ED's rejoinder on the same day. The case highlights the ongoing tension between central investigative agencies and state governments in India, particularly in states governed by opposition parties.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest