Breaking|Calcutta High Court Disposes Of Plea By Trinamool Congress After ED Submits That Nothing Was Seized From I-PAC Office
The ED submitted that it was Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who took away all the records and digital devices.
The Calcutta High Court has disposed of the petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress after the Enforcement Directorate ('ED') submitted that nothing was seized from the office of I-PAC by them.
The Court further adjourned the petition filed by the ED as the case filed by the ED on the same issue is pending before the Supreme Court.
The Bench was hearing writ petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate ('ED') and All India Trinamool Congress in relation to the recent raids at the I-PAC office in Calcutta.
The Bench of Justice Surva Ghosh ordered, "The only prayer of the Petitioner is for the preservation of the political confidential data and protection of the same from being circulated and diverge to any other entity... other prayers are not pressed by the Petitioner. Ld. Counsels for the Respondent, on instructions, submitted that nothing whatsoever was seized from two premises in question on January 8 by the Enforcement Directorate...Copies of panchnamas drawn up at alleged places of search and seizure demonstrate that nothing was seized from the office of Proforma Respondent and the Director of Respondent No. 4 (I-PAC). Nothing further remains in the petition; hence, disposed of."
ASG SV Raju appeared for the ED, while Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for the Petitioner, Trinamool Congress.
"Insofar as the ED Matter is concerned, the prayers before the Supreme Court are almost identical, the Court said.
Raju said, "We have made the same but additional prayers in the petition before the Supreme Court."
"Matter is going to come before the Supreme Court, heavens are not going to fall...Let these matters be adjourned for a short date. The main reason why we want an adjournment as similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court...The Supreme Court is seized of the matter. My reasonable request, the judicial decorum, requires that this matter may be adjourned." ASG Raju said.
"I am opposing the ED's request for adjournment," Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay submitted for Respondent No. 2 in the ED's Petition.
"Now in this case, our point...(ASG Raju interrupted)...We are not allowed to argue....this is bullying.", Guruswamy submitted.
"We are not on caveat, we are not as a party (before Supreme Court), we don't know what ED has filed...1. In this matter I want to make three points...we are not party at the Supreme Court...2. There was a search, we don't think anything has been seized, but if it has been seized, the privacy should be maintained...we are a political party...In Puttuswamy it has been upheld that there is right to privacy. We live in a constitutional democracy. We want our political data to be safe. There is a right to privacy. Political ideology is protected. We are not a party (before the plea in the Supreme Court); we are not on caveat. As an officer of the court, I am making this statement. This is our political data which must be protected...unlike Mr raju I don't like to bully the Court." Guruswamy submitted.
ASG Raju said, "How does she know that they are not a party?"
Guruswamy replied, "Case status Mr Raju!"
ASG Raju, "There is no case status."
Justice Ghosh said, "Let me hear the Union of India. I request you not to intervene."
ASG Raju interjected and said, "I am representing the Union of India. I am the Additional Solicitor General. I have not completed. Sorry State of affairs. Every second my mic is muted...This is not a proper state of affairs...this amounts to interference with the administration...Somebody is playing mischief."
Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the Election Commission of India has to be made a party in the case, as the election is yet to be notified.
"Somebody's data has been data is seized, how is it connected to the Petitioner?", the Counsel said.
ASG Raju added, "The record, which was seized, was seized by Mamata Banerjee. Therefore, these prayers are not maintainable unless Mamata Banerjee is made a party...Mamata Banerjee physically seized all the records and the digital devices from the premises, and she has taken all the possession and hence committed an offence...Mamata Banerjee is in possession of all the devices, until she is made a party as she has taken illegal possession...This is not maintainable as Mamata Banerjee and others who abetted the offence are not made as parties. Secondly, this petition has been filed by a person not concerned in any way."
ASG Raju submitted that a false affidavit has been filed with the Petition by the Trinamool Congress.
"The person whose place has been raided has not come way forward.", he added.
ASG Raju submitted, "Before entertaining any application, the defect has to be cured. Defect cannot be cured here; it amounts to perjury. Petitioner is not concerned, not present at places of search. He has nothing to do with the premises...How can a third person, who has not done anything, not seen anything, no knowledge, no information, doesn't say they received the information from some source? The person who has filed the petition is incompetent to file the present petition...How does he know that the documents were seized...Petition by a person who doesn't know anything is not maintainable."
"Maintaining data would arise, if I have seized the data, so if I have not seized the data, then how can this prayer be made against. This prayer should be made against Mamata Banerjee...I am making a statement, ED has not seized the data...Mamata Banerjee has taken these data...What data? We have not seized anything." ASG Raju said.
"Judicial propriety requires that the TMC matter should also be adjourned," ASG Raju said.
Justice Ghosh said, "They are asking for very limited direction."
Guruswamy submitted, "May I make two points. 1. Mr Raju's statement may be recorded that nothing has been seized...2. Our petition is of a very limited nature i.e. the protection of political data, 3. It is inappropriate to bully a political party at a time when it is believed that the personal data of a political party is there. 4. On the issue of the affidavit, this person has filed an affidavit along with the Vakalatnama...this person is a member of a party. We all want to have a free and fair election. "
She further said that some decorum has to be maintained while addressing the name of the Chief Minister.
ASG Raju said, "I have made my statement that nothing has been seized. They can withdraw the petition."
Guruswamy replied, "I have not made such a submission. Please don't put words to my mouth; his statement may be recorded and disposed of... You are having momentary amnesia. I never said that."
ASG Raju submitted, "Nothing has been seized from these two premises on January 8, 2026, by the ED and everything was taken by Mamata Banerjee."
On the plea of the ED, the Court ordered, "On the ground that the ED has filed SLP with prayers which are almost identical, the matter is adjourned. Liberty to mention after the matter before the Supreme Court is disposed of."
The ED approached the Calcutta High Court to report the hindrance and obstruction caused by the State Government in connection with the recent raids on the premises of the political consultancy firm I-PAC. However, on January 9, the High Court adjourned the plea after a commotion broke out in the courtroom.
The ED launched a money-laundering investigation into a coal scam that originated in 2020. As part of this probe, ED officers conducted search operations at the Kolkata premises of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC). During the raid, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the I-PAC office accompanied by senior party leaders.
The ED moved the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Cause Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Union of India and Ors. [WPA/602/2026] and Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal and Ors. [WPA/609/2026]