I-PAC case in Supreme Court: ED moves top court after Calcutta HC deferment; Bengal govt files caveat

Before moving the Supreme Court, the ED had approached the Calcutta High Court seeking registration of an FIR against Mamata Banerjee for allegedly “obstructing” its search operations.

• ED moves Supreme Court alleging obstruction in coal scam probe by Bengal govt
• ED seeks CBI probe, claims right to fair investigation was curtailed
• Bengal govt files caveat to ensure its version is heard before any court order

Did our AI summary help?

The Enforcement Directorate has moved the Supreme Court with an Article 32 petition after hearings in the Calcutta High Court were deferred in connection with searches linked to political consultancy firm I-PAC. The central agency has alleged that its investigation into the coal smuggling case was obstructed by the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

In its petition, the ED has laid out a detailed timeline of events from the search operations, characterising the episode as a “showdown” at premises linked to I-PAC. The agency has sought a CBI probe into the incident, claiming that its “right to conduct a fair and independent investigation has been curtailed by the state machinery”.

Allegations of obstruction during searches

According to the ED, its officers were prevented from lawfully conducting searches and seizing material connected to the coal smuggling probe. The agency has alleged that both physical records and electronic devices were forcibly taken away from the premises during the searches, and that this occurred in the presence of senior state officials.

The petition argues that the involvement of state authorities, including police personnel, amounted to obstruction of justice and compromised the integrity of the investigation. The ED has told the top court that such interference makes it difficult for central agencies to function independently in states where they face what it described as institutional resistance.

Caveat filed by Bengal government

Anticipating the ED’s approach to the Supreme Court, the West Bengal government had earlier filed a caveat. A caveat is a formal request to ensure that no order is passed by a court without first hearing the party that has filed it.

The state’s move was aimed at ensuring that its version of events is placed before the Supreme Court before any interim relief is considered in favour of the ED.

Roots of the dispute

The standoff traces back to ED raids in Kolkata at locations associated with I-PAC, which the agency says were conducted as part of its probe into a multi-crore coal scam. The ED has alleged that proceeds of crime worth nearly Rs 10 crore were routed to I-PAC through hawala channels, and that the consultancy firm received payments from the Trinamool Congress for services linked to the 2022 Goa Assembly elections.

High Court proceedings put on hold

Before moving the Supreme Court, the ED had approached the Calcutta High Court seeking registration of an FIR against Mamata Banerjee for allegedly “obstructing” its search operations. However, the matter did not proceed as planned.

Hearings were deferred after both a single-judge bench and a division bench headed by the acting Chief Justice postponed proceedings until after January 14.

Counter-petitions and denials

In response, the Trinamool Congress and I-PAC filed counter-petitions in the Calcutta High Court disputing the ED’s claims. The party has maintained that documents seized during the raids pertained only to election planning and campaign strategy, arguing that such material does not fall within the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The party has accused the ED of attempting to access confidential political material under the guise of an investigation. Separate complaints were also lodged by the family of I-PAC chief Pratik Jain, alleging theft of important documents during the searches.

The ED has rejected these allegations, maintaining that all its actions were lawful and followed due process. With the Supreme Court now seized of the matter, the confrontation has entered what the agency describes as a critical phase.