The Enforcement Directorate (ED) made a sensational claim before the Calcutta High Court, alleging that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee is in “illegal possession” of materials searched during an agency raid on Wednesday.
The agency was conducting a search at the offices of I-PAC and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, in connection with a coal pilferage money laundering probe. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju informed the court that the Chief Minister and her “cohorts” physically intervened, preventing any official seizure by taking away all records and digital devices.
While the Trinamool Congress (TMC) maintains that the ED was attempting to “steal” sensitive party strategy for the 2026 elections, the agency has moved the Supreme Court seeking a CBI probe into the alleged obstruction.
Midnight Raid
The conflict began when the ED launched a search operation on 8 January 2026, targeting political consultancy firm I-PAC. The agency alleged that approximately 20 crore rupees in “proceeds of crime” from a coal smuggling scam had been diverted to I-PAC through hawala channels.
However, the search took an unprecedented turn when Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally arrived at the scene. The agency claims that instead of allowing the law to take its course, the Chief Minister and her associates physically intercepted the officers.
This led to a heated confrontation where the agency was reportedly forced to leave the premises without executing a formal seizure of the evidence they had identified.
Legal Allegations
During a high-stakes hearing, ASG SV Raju used sharp language to describe the events, stating that “nothing was seized by the ED” because the materials were forcibly taken by the Chief Minister.
The agency contended that Banerjee committed a criminal offence by obstructing federal officers and being in possession of documents that are part of an active criminal investigation.
The ED further requested the court to implead the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police (DGP) as parties to the case, alleging that the state machinery was used to facilitate the “theft” of evidence. These allegations have pushed the ongoing rivalry between the Centre and the State into uncharted legal territory.
TMC Defends Privacy
The Trinamool Congress has offered a starkly different narrative, accusing the central government of using the ED as a political tool.
The party argued that the agency’s real objective was not a financial probe but the acquisition of confidential data regarding the TMC’s 2026 assembly election plans, including candidate shortlists and booth-level strategies.
Mamata Banerjee defended her actions, asserting that as the party Chairperson, she had a duty to protect “intellectual property” and “confidential political research” from being “looted” by a central agency. The TMC moved the High Court seeking protection for this data, claiming that the ED’s actions were a violation of their right to political privacy.
Judicial Outcome
Justice Amrita Sinha of the Calcutta High Court eventually disposed of the TMC’s plea, observing that since the ED explicitly stated they had not seized any data, there was nothing currently in the agency’s possession to “protect” or “return.”
However, the legal battle is far from over. The ED has now approached the Supreme Court, seeking a transfer of the investigation into the “snatching of evidence” to the CBI. The agency argues that local police cannot impartially investigate a case involving the Chief Minister.
This escalation signifies a deep institutional crisis, where the lines between a criminal investigation and political warfare have become dangerously blurred, leaving the judiciary to mediate a historic federal conflict.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that the sanctity of legal institutions and the privacy of political organisations are both essential pillars of a healthy democracy. However, a Chief Minister physically intervening in a federal agency’s search operation sets a concerning precedent for the rule of law.
While political parties must be protected from state-sponsored espionage, criminal probes into financial irregularities must also be allowed to proceed without physical obstruction. We advocate for a culture of cooperative federalism where disputes are settled in courtrooms rather than through street-level confrontations.
