New Delhi: The constitutional standoff between the West Bengal government and the central investigative agencies has reached the Supreme Court. The State government has filed a counter-affidavit questioning the maintainability of a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the controversial raid at the I-PAC (Indian Political Action Committee) office in Kolkata.
The ED had approached the Apex Court alleging "state interference" after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee purportedly visited the I-PAC office during the raid on January 8, 2026, and allegedly removed certain files.
In its reply, the West Bengal government argued that the ED, being a government agency, does not possess Fundamental Rights under the Constitution to file a writ petition under Article 32—a remedy typically reserved for citizens to protect their liberties. The State further contended:
- Parallel Proceedings: The Calcutta High Court is already hearing similar matters. The ED cannot "forum shop" by approaching the Supreme Court while the High Court is still adjudicating.
- Violation of Privacy: The State accused the ED of conducting "omnibus search and seizure" operations without proper notice, terming it a violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 and privileged communications.
The genesis of this legal battle lies in the ED's investigation into the alleged coal scam money laundering case.
- Jan 8: ED raids I-PAC office. CM Mamata Banerjee allegedly intervenes.
- Jan 14: Calcutta HC records ED's statement that "nothing was seized."
- The SC Move: Claiming obstruction, the ED moved the Supreme Court seeking a CBI inquiry into the state's interference and a transfer of the investigation. The SC had previously stayed proceedings in 3 FIRs filed by the Bengal police against ED officials.
This case is a flashpoint in federal relations. It tests whether a central agency can bypass the High Court and directly approach the Supreme Court when it feels obstructed by a State Government. It also raises critical questions about the extent of a state's power to "police the police" (ED) and the privacy rights of political consultancy firms like I-PAC during financial investigations.