The Supreme Court on Thursday stepped into the high-stakes legal battle between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal government, issuing a formal notice to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state officials. The Bench, while expressing deep concern over the alleged "obstruction" of central agency raids, passed an interim order staying all FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials involved in the recent search operations at political consultancy firm I-PAC.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi was hearing a petition filed by the ED under Article 32 of the Constitution. The agency has alleged that the Chief Minister, along with top police brass, personally interfered in a lawful search, resulting in the "theft" of incriminating evidence and digital devices.

The Court’s directions on Thursday provided immediate, albeit temporary, relief to the central agency while setting a strict timeline for the state to explain its conduct:

Notice to Respondents: The Court issued notices to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the State of West Bengal, DGP Rajeev Kumar, and Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Varma. They have been directed to file their counter-affidavits within two weeks.
Protection for ED Officers: All investigations and proceedings related to the FIRs filed by the state police against ED officials have been stayed until the next hearing.
Evidence Preservation: In a crucial move to ensure the facts are not lost, the Court ordered the state to preserve all CCTV footage from the I-PAC offices and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, as well as footage from the surrounding Salt Lake and Loudon Street areas.
Next Hearing: The Bench scheduled the matter for further consideration on February 3, 2026.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, opened the arguments by describing the events of January 8 as a breakdown of the constitutional machinery. He alleged that the Chief Minister "barged in" while a search under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was in progress.

"This reflects a very shocking pattern," Mehta submitted. "Whenever statutory authorities discharge their functions in the state, the highest authority in the government intervenes. In this instance, the CM entered the premises, took possession of digital devices and three incriminating documents, and even took away the mobile phone of an ED officer. This is pure theft, committed in the presence of the DGP."

Supporting the SG, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that the state’s actions amounted to "robbery and dacoity." He emphasized that the local police, who are statutorily bound to assist the ED under Section 54 of the PMLA, instead acted as participants in the obstruction.

The ED has also sought the immediate suspension of DGP Rajeev Kumar, reminding the Court of his past involvement in a dharna (protest) alongside the Chief Minister during a previous CBI investigation.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress (TMC), launched a fierce counter-attack, labeling the ED’s petition a "fabrication."

1. The "Panchnama" Discrepancy Sibal pointed to the ED's own search record (the panchnama) to argue that the agency’s claims in court did not match their own written reports. "It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. The panchnama itself shows that the search was concluded and only specific items were seized. Either the SG is lying, or the petition is lying," Sibal argued.

2. Protecting Election Data Sibal emphasized that I-PAC is a private consultancy holding six years of sensitive election data and strategy for the TMC. He argued that the ED’s raid was an attempt to "bully" a political party and "snatch" confidential poll plans just weeks before the state elections. "The last statement in this coal case was recorded in February 2024. Why did they wait nearly two years to raid I-PAC right before the elections?" he asked.

3. Maintaining Judicial Hierarchy Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, raised a preliminary objection regarding the "maintainability" of the petition. He argued that the ED should have continued its case in the Calcutta High Court rather than rushing to the Supreme Court. He accused the agency of "forum shopping"—the practice of choosing a specific court in hopes of a more favorable outcome.

The hearing also saw a sharp exchange regarding the atmosphere of the judiciary in West Bengal. SG Mehta alleged that the Calcutta High Court had been turned into "Jantar Mantar" (a famous protest site in Delhi) by orchestrated gatherings of lawyers and supporters during previous hearings.

The Supreme Court Bench was quick to intervene. "Don’t create ruckus here," Justice Mishra cautioned the lawyers, reminding them that the Court would not be swayed by theatrical arguments. However, the Bench did admit they were "disturbed" by reports of commotion at the High Court, stating that such incidents compromise the sanctity of the legal process.

Justice Mishra remarked: "We will examine this issue in detail. If central agencies are demoralized by state interference, it creates a situation of lawlessness that we cannot ignore."

The root of this legal storm is an investigation into an alleged ₹2,742 crore money laundering scam linked to illegal coal mining. The ED claims that approximately ₹10 crore of "proceeds of crime" were routed to I-PAC via hawala channels. The TMC, however, maintains that the payments were legitimate fees for professional services rendered during various election campaigns, including the 2022 Goa polls.

Today's hearing has set the stage for a major constitutional showdown over the limits of state power versus central investigative authority. By staying the FIRs against the ED and demanding the preservation of CCTV footage, the Supreme Court has signaled that it will not tolerate the use of local police to stall federal investigations.

As the parties prepare their responses for the February 3 hearing, the political and legal stakes in West Bengal have never been higher.

Case Details: Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi