I-PAC Raids| Supreme Court Reserves Verdict On ED Plea, Mamata Banerjee Says State Can Send Case To CBI
The bench asked ASG S V Raju why the Centre could not now refer the matter to the CBI itself, observing that the situation that had prompted the ED to approach the Supreme Court no longer existed.
The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea alleging obstruction by then West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee and state authorities during its January 8 search of political consultancy firm I-PAC’s Kolkata office
Former West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee told the Supreme Court that the Suvendu Adhikari government was free to transfer to the CBI the probe into the alleged obstruction of raids by the Enforcement Directorate at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata.
The ED urged the top court to pass an order on its plea for free and fair investigation of the case to avoid any party making allegations of mala fide.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N V Anjaria reserved its verdict on the ED's plea alleging obstruction by the then chief minister Banerjee and other state authorities during its January 8 search of the I-PAC office.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for the Banerjee
Sibal submitted that now the situation has changed in the state and the government was free to send the case for investigation by the CBI.
"There was a raid as far as I-PAC is concerned. Something happened, police officers were involved, there was a complaint against ED officers. An Article 32 petition was filed and the prayer was to send it to the CBI. She was a sitting chief minister then. Now, she is not the chief minister. So there is no impediment. Now, the state has another government and the chief minister. Now, they are entitled to send any matter to the CBI. If they wish to do it, no one can stand in their way," he submitted.
Sibal said the court should not be burdened by this petition and arguments, as the state very much has the power under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act of 1946 to send any case to the CBI.
The bench said Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy earlier made a similar argument but then Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said "mala fide" will be alleged.
Sibal asked why is the state government fearing such consequences and if there is any criticism, then it has to deal with it.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said that this case is not only against political leaders but also against some police officials, who are in service and there may be allegations of "mala fide" and they will say the Supreme Court did not interfere.
Sibal said, "The reason for which they came under Article 32, that basis is now gone. That's all I have to say. Why should your lordships go into it at all?"
The bench told Raju, "Why can't your government now refer it to the CBI? At that time, whatever situation was prevailing in the high court you came here. But now there is no ruckus, it is quiet everywhere. You can also go to the high court."
Raju submitted that then again the matter will be argued afresh before the high court and, "it was not just the ex-CM against whom there are allegations. Senior police officials, who are in service are also involved and they can still be able to influence".
The bench said it is reserving its decision on the plea.
On August 18, the ED urged the court to decide whether the CBI can investigate or not if an offence is committed by a sitting chief minister.
Guruswamy, appearing for Banerjee, had submitted that now that the government has changed, the prayer for sanction and transfer to local police can be done by the state government and nothing remains in the matter.
SG Mehta, appearing for the ED, had then requested the court that the larger issue must be decided saying that the agency doesn't want to face any allegations that the state government, because of political reasons, has done it.
"Either we are right or wrong; I want the court to decide. I don't wish to fall into the death trap that, subsequent to the changes in the government, the state transferred it to the CBI," Mehta had said.
In the West Bengal elections in April, the BJP secured a historic win with 207 seats in the 294-member house, ending the 15-year rule of Banerjee-led TMC.
Alleging complete breakdown of law and order in West Bengal, the ED on April 23 claimed in the apex court that Banerjee used the state machinery to obstruct its money laundering probe against I-PAC.
The ED alleged that Banerjee, accompanied by a large police contingent, personally intervened to halt the search and seize evidence collected by federal agency officers.
While hearing arguments in the matter on April 22, the top court observed that democracy is put in peril if a chief minister intervenes in a probe.
The ED is seeking a direction to transfer the investigation into the alleged obstruction and the "retaliatory" FIRs to the CBI, saying that an independent agency is required to investigate the conduct of Banerjee and the state's top police brass.
The ED has alleged interference and obstruction by the then state government, including by Banerjee, in its probe and search operation at the I-PAC office and the premises of its director, Pratik Jain, in connection with an alleged coal-pilferage scam.
The top court, while staying the FIRs filed in West Bengal against the ED officials, had also directed the state police to preserve the CCTV footage of the raids.
It had issued notices to Banerjee, the West Bengal government, former state director general of police Rajeev Kumar and top cops on the ED's petitions seeking a CBI probe against them for allegedly obstructing its raids.
On January 14, 2026, the Calcutta High Court had 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.
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]