Supreme Court Stays State Probe Against ED Officers At I-PAC Raids, Says There Will Be A Situation of Lawlessness

The Supreme Court, while issuing notice in the plea of Enforcement Directorate ('ED'), stayed all further proceedings and investigations in the FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officers.

The Court directed the West Bengal government to preserve all CCTV footage and storage devices from both the searched premises (the I-PAC office and Pratik Jain’s residence) and the surrounding areas.

The Court was hearing a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by the Enforcement Directorate ('ED') in relation to the recent raids at the I-PAC office in Calcutta.

The Court also heard a petition seeking registration of the FIR against the Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee.

The Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "Having heard Ld. Counsels... we are of the prima facie view that the present petition has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by the ED and other central agencies and its interference by the State Agency. According to us, for adherence of 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 by the law enforcing agnecies of a particular State. According to us, larger questions are involved which have been raised in the present matter, which, if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation, and there will be a situation of lawlessness...True that any central agency has no power to interfere with the election work of any party, but at the same time, the central agencies are acting bona fidely may investigate any serious offence...Issue Notice. Post the matter on...In the meanwhile, it is directed that the Respondents shall preserve the CCTV cameras and other storage devices containing the footage of both the premises searched on 08.01.2026 and the nearby areas. It is also directed that the further proceedings and the investigation related to FIR Nos....registered at...shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hussain appeared for the Enforcement Directorate, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Shyam Diwan appeared for the Respondents.

The Court ordered, "In the first petition, the petitioner is the Director, and in the second petition, the officers are the ones who have gone to the subject premises conducted by the ED. Ld. ASG appearing for the Petitioner would draw our attention to the series of events which have led to the filing of the present petitions. According to him, the ED was investigating a scam amounting to Rs. 2028 crores...Armed with the authorization to carry out the search of the residential premises of Mr Pratik Jain of I-Pac, the officers visited the premises on 08.01.2026. Manoj Kumar Verma, IPS, first entered the premises, then sitting Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee also entered the premises despite making categorical requests for not interfering with the ongoing search proceedings...

The Court orderd, "Ld. Solicitor General submits that it is not the first instance where CM interfered with an investigation, and it happened when CBI was probing an offence, and thus, a pattern emerges when a probe is carried out by central agencies. It is contended that material was taken away in an illegal manner and that the West Bengal Government has filed an FIR against the ED officers...On the above basis, the Ld SG submitted that the present is a serious matter which needs to be examined by this Court, and secondly, the High Court is not allowed to. According to him, since higher officials of the Police of the State Government are involved, it would be appropriate for this Court to examine the issue..."

On January 14, 2026, the Calcutta High Court disposed of the petition filed by the All India Trinamool Congress after the ED submitted that nothing was seized from the office of I-PAC by them. The High Court had 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 Court added in its order, "Respondents submit that the present petitions are not maintainable. They would submit that there is a pattern of interference by the ED in the name of investigation, exactly at the time of elections are due...Mr Sibal particularly submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has not gone to the premises in the capacity of the Chief Minister but as a member of TMC on the information that certain unauthorized presons have entered the premises..."

Mehta submitted, "This shows a very shocking state of a pattern emerging. This one incident that I have narrated in past also, whenever statutory authorities exercise statutory powers of investigations, going there, the Hon'ble Chief Minister barges into the premises wherever the raid is conducted. The officers, the director general of police, the commission of police, they accompany her...whatever material was collected was taken away. I am not feeling shy saying this, but this is an offence of theft."

Mehta then referred to Section 54 of the PMLA Act. 

He said, "The Chief Minister staged a dharna so no one can enter. Officers are not permitted to discharge duty."

Mehta said, "We approached the High Court, where the Mobocracy replaces democracy. See what the High Court Judge observes in the order. It notes a huge number of lawyers gathered, creating a commotion. She stated the environment in the court was not conducive to a hearing. (Read the earlier order of the High Court dated January 9)

"I have placed on record the WhatsApp chats, the law wing of the party in power...this was not spontaneous, they were all instructed by the legal cells of the party to go there in Court...", he added.

Justice Mishra remarked, "They are appearing as if it is Jantar Mantar."

SG Mehta then apprised the Court regarding the facts of the case and provisions of the PMLA Act.

"This particular scam (Coal Scam) is being investigated?" Justice Mehta asked.

"We informed the person in charge of the premises, this is the authority under which we told them that we are coming...we are not interested in their political activities...we were confined to this. But I do not know what was there to hide that such a drastic step had to be taken that the Chief Minister herself personally barges into it along with the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, and the entire police force." Mehta submitted.

"I-PAC, whose premises were searched, has not filed any complaint," he added.

The Court inquired about the photographs filed by the petition. The Counsels replied that these are the photos of the incidents. 

"We are issuing notice; this is a very serious matter...we are very much disturbed with the way it happened in the High Court..." Justice Mishra said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, "The matter should be heard by the High Court... they have filed the parallel proceedings..."

"Yesterday, they sought adjournment, saying that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court", Senior Advocate Singhvi said.

"Why was the need to go there in the midst of the election... the coal scam we are talking about.. the last statement recorded in the coal scam was on February 2024...what were they doing in 2024, 2025...?...Why should ED wait for two years to come to West Bengal and go on to an office, which is a party office, which has all the data and information", Sibal said.

Sibal then read the Panchnama, which was made after the search.

"Laptop belonging to Sh Pratik Jain, iPhone belonging to Sh Pratik Jain. She took the laptop and iphone which had all the party information...Search was conducted in a peaceful manner," He read.

He then read the second Panchnama made at the Salt Lake office. 

"Nothing was seized there, nothing was seized here," he added.

Justice Mishra said, "If they had any intention to seize your election data...they would have taken it, but they did not. You cannot stop us from issuing notice."

Sibal replied, "Of course, we can't. We are only trying to persuade you."

Singhvi, for the State of West Bengal, said, "One, we have serious objections to the maintainability of this Article 32...There are judgments whoch says that ED or a statutory body like the ED comes straight into a walk-in system of Article 32...Second, I raise the premium objection of forum shopping...this petition is identical...Emotions go out of hand regularly...Why on Earth are you having filed your petition in the High Court, the next day having filed in the Supreme Court...then make a statement to the High Court yesterday, that please don't hear me."

Singhvi then referred to the Panchnama as his third submission. 

He then submitted that the email was sent to the person concerned at 11:30 p.m. on the day of the raid, but the raid had already started at 6:30 a.m. already.

In the petition pertaining to the FIR against the Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the ASG SV Raju contended that a prima facie case of a cognizable offence had been clearly established, making the registration of an FIR mandatory under the settled law of the Lalita Kumari judgment. He said that there is no need for a preliminary inquiry, asserting that the Chief Minister’s alleged removal of evidence from the I-PAC premises constituted "theft, robbery, and dacoity."

"We are praying for the stay of the FIRs filed against us." SG Mehta submitted.

Background

The ED had 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 alleged that the Chief Minister confronted federal officers and interfered with their official duties. Specifically, the agency claimed that she took certain files from the premises, which hindered the ongoing investigation.

Cause Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026, Diary No. 1878/2026] and Nishant Kumar v. State of West Bengal [W.P.(Crl.) No. 17/2026 Diary No.1880/2026]