Rejecting allegations of robbery and dacoity levelled by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over searches linked to political consultancy firm I-PAC, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has told the Supreme Court that she only retrieved her party’s confidential data from the I-PAC office with the express consent of ED officers, and accused the central agency of conducting a pretextual raid aimed at stealing political and organisational information of the Trinamool Congress (TMC).
In a detailed affidavit filed in response to notices issued by the top court, Banerjee alleged that ED’s operation was timed suspiciously close to assembly elections and formed part of a recurring pattern of “colourable exercise of statutory power” by the agency to target opposition parties and undermine federalism. She also strongly opposed ED’s plea seeking transfer of the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), terming it an impermissible attempt by “accused persons to choose who investigates them”.
The matter was listed on Tuesday before a bench led by justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, but was adjourned to February 10 at ED’s request after the agency sought time to file rejoinders to the replies received from the state government and Banerjee.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for the ED and its officers, told the court that the replies were served only the previous evening. “We will need some time to file our rejoinders. The request is to keep it next week,” Mehta said. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sidharth Luthra appeared for Banerjee and the state authorities. Allowing the request, the bench fixed the matter for February 10.
Last month, ED searches at the offices of political strategy firm I-PAC in Kolkata and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, turned into a pitched political battle. Even as the searches were on, Banerjee stormed into Jain’s residence, and took away documents and a laptop, accusing ED of seizing her party’s internal documents and sensitive data relating to the 2026 assembly polls, including the candidate list. The agency accused the TMC chief of interfering in the ED’s action and taking away evidence.
ED’s money laundering probe in the matter was based on a CBI First Information Report (FIR) registered in November 2020 on allegations that coal was being illegally mined at Eastern Coalfields Ltd‘s mines in Kunustoria and Kajora in West Bengal. The agency previously questioned TMC general secretary Abhishek Banerjee, alleging that he is a beneficiary of funds obtained in the illegal mining.
In her affidavit, Banerjee denied all allegations of obstruction, intimidation or removal of evidence, asserting that her presence at the I-PAC office and the residence of its director was limited to retrieving digital devices and physical files containing TMC’s proprietary data. She said ED officers present at the premises had expressly permitted her to do so and that the searches continued peacefully even after she left, as reflected in the agency’s own panchnamas.
“The attempt to foist false charges of robbery and dacoity against me for taking away confidential and proprietary data belonging to AITC demonstrates the petitioners’ lack of bona fides,” Banerjee said, adding that neither the TMC nor its officials were accused in the coal scam being investigated by the ED.
She alleged that ED had trespassed into the office of a party contractor under the guise of a search and attempted to access sensitive political data, including candidate-related information, which she said was “wholly extraneous” to the object and scope of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
Questioning the maintainability of ED’s writ petition under Article 32, Banerjee argued that the agency and its officers were “State” under Article 12 and could not invoke fundamental rights against another state or its officials. At best, she said, the grievance raised was statutory in nature and the ED had bypassed prescribed remedies while seeking extraordinary reliefs, including transfer of investigation.
She further contended that the dispute raised by ED was, in substance, a constitutional dispute between the Union and a state, attracting the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131 and not maintainable through a writ petition under Article 32.
Echoing these objections, the West Bengal government, the state director general of police, and senior Kolkata Police officials also filed affidavits questioning the maintainability of ED’s petition and denying all allegations of interference. The state described the petition as a “blatant misuse” of Article 32 and accused the ED of reviving a long-dormant investigation on the eve of elections without any explanation for the delay.
The state government also opposed ED’s plea for a CBI probe, arguing that none of the reliefs sought were permissible under Article 32 and that an accused agency could not seek appointment of an investigator of its choice.
The Supreme Court had, on January 15, described the confrontation between ED and the West Bengal government as “very serious” and issued notices on petitions filed by ED and three of its officers, alleging obstruction of a money laundering investigation during searches conducted on January 8 at I-PAC premises in Kolkata and the residence of Jain.
The court had stayed proceedings arising from four FIRs lodged by the Kolkata Police against ED officials and directed preservation of CCTV footage and electronic records relating to the searches. ED has accused Banerjee and senior police officials of forcibly removing documents and digital devices, allegations that have been consistently denied by the chief minister and the state government.
Apart from the institutional plea filed by ED, a separate petition by three ED officers sought a CBI investigation into the episode, alleging threats to their personal safety and violations of their fundamental rights while discharging official duties. The court directed all respondents to file their replies within two weeks.
ED has alleged that nearly ₹10 crore in proceeds of crime were routed to I-PAC through hawala channels and that the firm was paid by the Trinamool Congress for services during the 2022 Goa assembly elections. I-PAC has been associated with the TMC since the 2019 Lok Sabha polls and is currently engaged with the party ahead of upcoming Bengal elections.
SC to take up Banerjee’s SIR petition
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court is set to take up Banerjee’s petition to dismantle the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, urging polls for the 2026 assembly elections strictly on the basis of existing 2025 voter lists.
Mamata has also sought the court’s permission to argue the petition herself.
This move escalates Banerjee’s public showdown with the poll panel, as she accuses the SIR process of risking widespread disenfranchisement ahead of the 18th Legislative Assembly elections.
She has made a sweeping prayer to quash all SIR-related orders from the Election Commission, dated June 24, 2025, and October 27, 2025, along with connected directives. She seeks a mandamus to enforce elections using the unaltered 2025 electoral rolls, arguing that the SIR’s rigorous verification, tied to 2002 baselines, threatens legitimate voters.
Further reliefs target “logical discrepancy” cases, demanding that no hearings take place for mere name mismatches or spelling issues, with corrections done suo motu using available records, and all such cases uploaded transparently on CEO and DEO websites.
Banerjee also wants all prior hearing notices withdrawn, no deletions of mapped voters from 2002 rolls who submitted documents, and Aadhaar accepted outright as identity proof without extras.