SC Issues Notice To Mamata, Senior Police Officials In I-PAC Obstruction Case Filed By ED

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to register an FIR against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other senior police officials for allegedly obstructing its search operations at the offices of I-PAC, a political consultancy company.

I-PAC was founded by Jan Suraaj founder Prashant Kishore, but is now headed by Pratik Jain. The company consults on elections for several political parties including the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC).

Calling the ED’s allegations of obstruction “a very serious issue”, a bench comprising of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi said the apex court need to examine the plea in detail.

"For furtherance 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 under the shield of the law enforcement agencies of a particular state,” said the bench, adding that “larger questions are involved in the present manner, which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation and there will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing in one or the other state, considering that different outfits are governing different places.”

The SC issued notices to the State of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and South Kolkata Deputy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy on ED’s writ petition, which was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The ED has further sought a CBI investigation into the obstruction case, saying it was not possible for Kolkata’s state police to investigate a matter against their own senior officials.

“True that any central agency does not have any power to interfere with the election work of any party. But if the central agency is bona fide investigating any serious offence, the question arises whether in the guise of taking shield of party activities, agencies can be restricted from carrying out power?” the bench said. The Court also stayed the further proceedings in the three FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials

The respondents have been given two weeks to file the counter-affidavits. The matter will now be heard on February 3, 2026.

Shocking Pattern Of Mobocracy In West Bengal: ED to SC

When the matter began, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the case before the bench represents what happens when mobocracy prevails over democracy in a state.

“Right now, we are concerned about the pattern,” he said, adding that, “I will take my lordships to the shocking example: the CBI officers don’t go on their own, there is a directive from this court, and then they are arrested and taken to the police station. The CM then stages a dharna so no one can enter the premises. The sitting law minister goes inside the Kolkata courtroom and sits there and shouts slogans with several 100 people. These are the incidents that we want to place on record and are concerned about.”

The SG went on to add, “This is what happens when mobocracy replaces democracy.” He further added that the ED had filed a separate petition requesting the SC to direct suspension proceedings against the DGP and other police officers.

SG said that one petition is jointly filed by the ED along with an officer who is personally aggrieved. There is another petition which has been filed by ED officers in their personal capacity, he added.

"Here, there was an evidence, leading to the conclusion that there is some incriminating material in the office of a company and the office of an individual. Officers of the ED go there in exercise of powers under Section 17 PMLA. We informed the local police also.

The Hon'ble Chief Minister, along with the DGP and large contagion of police, reach there, barge into the office and take away the files and devices. In my submission, it is nothing but theft. If such conduct is condoned, it will discourage and demoralise officers," SG said.

Speaking on the Calcutta High Court case, which was filed by ED last week, the SG said that the TMC had planned to disrupt the hearing. “We have WhatsApp messages that show that they told everyone to come there, they planned transportation, even,” the SG said.

Due to the last disruption, the High Court had recorded that ‘there is no way to maintain decorum and the dignity of the court so as that the matter for consideration fell on deaf ears. The environment in the court is not conducive to hearing a new motion,’ the SG read out from the HC order. He further added that the High Court had to issue a circular barring the entry of unauthorised persons into the court room.

SG further informed the bench that the State Police also had filed three FIRs against ED officials.

"What for you went there?" Justice Mishra asked. SG replied that the ED had gone to investigate a coal scam related case of money laundering. He also pointed out that I-PAC, whose premises were searched, has not filed any petition objecting to the search.

Mamata, TMC, WB Objects To Maintainability; Allege “Forum Shopping”

Both Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, and AM Singhvi, representing the police officials, said that the ED’s petition was not maintainable in law because the same case was being heard by the High Court of Calcutta.

When the bench pointed out that the behaviour at the hearing in the High Court had been “disturbing”, Sibal pointed out that there had been a second hearing on January 14th which had gone “peacefully.”

Sibal then submitted that I-PAC was TMC’s election consultant for the upcoming state assembly elections in March-April 2026. “The ED knows this,” he said, adding that the agency had last receiving information in the case in February 24, 2024, but chosen not to take any action at that time.

"The first question which arises is why was there a need to go there in the midst of an election? The last statement in coal scam was recorded in February 2024. What were they doing in 2024 and 2025, and why are they so keen in the midst of elections in 2026? If you get hold of the information, how will we fight the elections? This is why the Party Chairman (Mamata) has the right to go there. It is the property of the party," Sibal said.

Sibal further added that the ED’s own panchnama of the search and seizures said that “nothing untoward” happened. “If they produce the videos of the searches, their claim will fall flat as an absolute lie,” he said, adding that Banerjee only took a laptop that had TMC data on it, and a personal iPhone that also contained party information.

Representing the senior police officials and the state of West Bengal, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, submitted that the ED was “forum shopping” having already approached the Calcutta High Court with the same plea. “This is like they have gone to the HC and said we are riding two horses,” said Singhvi.

The senior advocate also added that as per the panchnama, it is recorded that the entire search was done peacefully. However, ASG SV Raju pointed out that the panchnama also records that Mamata took into possession certain materials.

In response to the SG's submission that the local police were given intimation about the search, Singhvi pointed out that the ED had only sent a “casual email” about the search operations at 11:30AM, while the operations had begun at 6:30AM. “In what Gregorian calendar does 11:30 come before 6am, I want to know?” he said, adding that this was done “just to create a paper trail.”

Singhvi further submitted that Banerjee had received word that I-PAC premises were being accessed by unauthorised and unidentified persons— “and they were unidentified at that time because no notice was sent in advance by the ED”. Tthe police officers had no choice but to follow, Singhvi added, because Banerjee is Z+ protected person.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan , for police officers Manoj Kumar Verma and Priyabatra Roy, also submitted that the ED should be come before the Calcutta High Court.

Crime is Theft and Therefore a Cognisable Offence: ASG SV Raju

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing in a connected petition filed by ED officers for suspension of the DGP and others, submitted that Banerjee and TMC had admitted to taking a laptop and a phone out of the premises. “This is a case of simple theft, which is a cognisable offence,” he said. ASG went on to say that since more than five people were involved, this could be seen as a case of robbery and dacoity as well. “However, for now, theft is enough to maintain that this is a cognisable offence,” he added.

On this basis, ASG asked the SC to issue directions for a CBI investigation into the matter. He also sought a stay of the FIRs registered by the State Police against the ED officials.

ED had filed its petition under Article 32 of the Constitution accusing the State of West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, and several senior police officials of obstructing its case investigations into alleged money-laundering in which I-PAC was involved.

Earlier this month, ED officials went to conduct searches at the office of I-PAC in Kolkata. During the search operations, CM Mamata Banerjee allegedly reached the I-PAC office along with senior party leaders and confronted ED officials. The ED has also alleged that the Chief Minister took away “key evidences” from the raided premises.