New Delhi is bracing for a pivotal Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will press its urgent plea against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and top state officials. The controversy erupted during a recent ED raid on the offices of Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the Kolkata residence of its co-founder Prateek Jain. ED alleges that state authorities blatantly interfered, obstructing federal investigators from performing their duties.
The bench, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi, will resume proceedings as listed on the Supreme Court’s cause list. In its petition, ED has demanded FIRs against Mamata Banerjee, the state’s Director General of Police, and Kolkata Police Commissioner for hindering a lawful search operation.
This stems from a high-stakes standoff last month. During the raid, ED teams faced aggressive resistance, prompting the agency to approach the apex court. Previously, the court stayed an FIR filed by West Bengal Police against ED officers, recognizing the gravity of alleged state interference in central probes.
Issuing notices to the Chief Minister and senior police brass, the bench granted two weeks for counter-affidavits and scheduled today’s hearing. It also ordered preservation of CCTV footage from the raid sites and surrounding areas, along with all digital storage devices. The court warned that unresolved such incidents could lead to anarchy in one or more states.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing ED, described the episode as ‘mob rule replacing democracy.’ He detailed how ED officers were intimidated and prevented from executing their mandates. On the other side, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, for the West Bengal government, challenged the plea’s maintainability, accusing ED of forum shopping while similar matters pend in Calcutta High Court.
The case underscores deepening tensions between central agencies and opposition-ruled states, with potential ramifications for federal investigations nationwide. As the hearing unfolds, all eyes are on how the Supreme Court balances investigative autonomy against state powers.