In a swift move amid escalating tensions, the West Bengal government has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court concerning the controversial raids on I-PAC offices. The development comes after the Calcutta High Court directed a probe into the searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the residences and offices of individuals linked to Trinamool Congress’s poll strategist Prashant Kishor’s team.
The caveat, a legal maneuver to ensure the state is heard before any adverse orders, signals Kolkata’s firm stance against what it terms ‘politically motivated’ actions by central agencies. Sources indicate the filing was lodged late Friday, preempting potential pleas from the raided parties seeking urgent judicial intervention.
Background to the controversy traces back to recent ED operations targeting I-PAC, the political analytics firm accused of financial irregularities during the 2021 assembly elections. The agency claims violations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), alleging undisclosed foreign funds funneled into campaign strategies.
West Bengal’s Law Minister Moloy Ghatak lambasted the raids as ‘vendetta politics,’ asserting they undermine democratic processes. ‘This is nothing but an attempt to stifle opposition voices ahead of crucial elections,’ he stated in a press briefing. The state argues the high court’s directive for a status quo lacks procedural propriety and encroaches on executive domains.
Legal experts view the caveat as a strategic play, buying time for the government to prepare its defenses. ‘Caveats prevent ex-parte orders, ensuring balanced hearings,’ noted constitutional lawyer Kaushik Choudhury. Meanwhile, I-PAC has denied all charges, calling the actions ‘harassment’ and hinting at approaching higher courts.
As the matter heats up, political circles in Delhi and Kolkata are abuzz with speculation. With Lok Sabha polls looming, this face-off underscores deepening Centre-state frictions under the current federal structure. The Supreme Court’s response could set precedents for agency autonomy versus state rights, making it a case to watch closely.
Stakeholders await clarity, but for now, the caveat underscores West Bengal’s resolve to contest the narrative head-on, potentially reshaping the discourse on electoral consultancy and enforcement overreach.