Larger questions involved, SC says, issues notice to Mamata

After more than two hour long fierce arguments, the Supreme Court on Thursday, stayed FIRs against the ED officers and issued notices to Mamata Banerjee and West Bengal officials, terming the matter is very serious. A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi observed that adherence to the rule of law in the country and to allow each organ to function independently, it is necessary to examine the issue so that the offenders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of law-enforcing agencies of a particular State.

The SC also issued notice to West Bengal DGP Rajeev Kumar on the ED’s petitions seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing raids at I-PAC premises. “Larger questions are involved and have been raised, which, if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation, and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different outfits are governing different places,” the bench said.

The SC said a central agency has no power to interfere with the election work of any party. But at the same time, if central agencies are acting bona fide to investigate any serious offence, the question arises whether agencies can be restricted from carrying out duties under the shield of party activity, it said. The matter is posted for further hearing on February 3.

Earlier in the day, the SC said that it was very much disturbed by the commotion at the Calcutta High Court during its hearing in the ED raids case. The Calcutta High Court had adjourned till January 14 the hearing on petitions related to the ED’s search and seizure operations at sites linked to political consultancy firm I-PAC, citing unmanageable chaos inside the courtroom.

As the hearing commenced, the ED said the West Bengal government’s “interference and obstruction” during the probe agency’s raids reflects a very shocking pattern. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, told the bench that in the past also, whenever statutory authorities exercised statutory power, Banerjee barged in and interfered.

“It reflects a very shocking pattern,” Mehta said while contending that this will only encourage such acts, and the central forces will be demoralised. “The states will feel they can barge in, commit theft, and then sit on a dharna. Let an example be set, officers who were explicitly present there should be suspended,” the solicitor general said. Mehta said that there was evidence leading to the conclusion that incriminating material was lying in the I-PAC office.

“Let an example be set, and officers explicitly present there should be suspended. Direct the competent authority to act, and please take cognisance of what is happening. We are here to protect our officers’ fundamental rights. We are acting under the law and do not seize for personal gains,” he said. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal opposed Mehta’s plea and said the case should be heard by the Calcutta High Court first, and proper hierarchy should be followed. He claimed the ED was filing parallel proceedings.

Sibal also referred to the video recording of the raid and said, “It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. Allegation that CM Mamata Banerjee took all devices is a lie, substantiated by ED’s own panchnama (search record).” “The last statement in the coal scam was recorded in February 2024; what was ED doing since then? Why so keen in the midst of elections?” he posed. The ED’s plea in the apex court follows events from January 8, when ED’s officials faced obstructions during the probe agency’s raids at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC in Salt Lake and the residence of its chief, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata in connection with a coal smuggling case. The probe agency has claimed that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee entered the premises and took away “key” evidence related to the probe. The Chief Minister has accused the central agency of overreach, while her party, Trinamool Congress, has denied the ED’s allegation of “obstructing” its probe. The state’s police have registered an FIR against ED officers. Sibal argued that went to the I-PAC premises on January 8 after receiving information that certain unauthorised persons had entered into the office of Pratik Jain, who had been entrusted with TMC’s election work. Clarifying that Banerjee did not go to the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) premises as chief minister, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for her, told a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi that the Trinamool Congress (TMC) supremo went there as chairman of the party.

The Supreme Court flagged concern over the enormous disturbance and commotion in the Calcutta High Court on January 9 on account of an unmanageable crowd which forced it to adjourn the scheduled hearing of cases related to the ED’s search and seizure operations at political consultancy firm I-PAC’s office. “I have placed on record Whatsapp chats of the law wing of the party in power. This was not spontaneous and they were instructed by the legal cell of the party to go there,” Mehta said. The bench then remarked orally, “Come, everyone? As if it’s Jantar Mantar.” Mehta said the High Court was converted into Jantar Mantar. “Buses and vehicles were arranged,” the SG added. Sibal assured the court that it will not be repeated. “Yesterday, hearing took place. Without any ruckus, ED sought adjournment yesterday,” he said.