New Delhi/Kolkata, April 23 — The Supreme Court has delivered a sharp warning over the conduct of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during an Enforcement Directorate search linked to I-PAC, saying that a chief minister cannot simply walk into an ongoing investigation and then portray the matter as a Centre-state dispute. Hearing the central agency’s petition for a CBI inquiry, the court said such conduct could place democracy itself in jeopardy, framing the dispute as one involving alleged obstruction by an individual holding high office rather than a constitutional clash between governments. The case arises from events of January 8, when ED teams searched the Kolkata office of Indian Political Action Committee and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain as part of a money-laundering investigation tied to the wider coal-smuggling case in eastern India. The agency has told the court that its officers were acting on material suggesting receipts of more than Rs 20 crore at Jain’s premises and that the broader laundering trail under scrutiny runs into Rs 2,742.32 crore. The ED alleges Banerjee, accompanied by senior state officials and police officers, entered the premises, intimidated officers and removed files and electronic material collected during the search.
A bench of Justices P. K. Mishra and N. V. Anjaria made clear that it was unwilling to treat the episode as a federal turf war. Justice Mishra said the court could not accept the argument that the matter belonged in the narrow category of disputes between the Union and a state under Article 131, adding that this was an act attributed to a person who happened to be chief minister and one that placed the wider democratic order in danger. The bench’s language signalled deep concern not only about the January confrontation itself but also about the precedent that could be set if elected executives physically intervene in live investigations by statutory agencies.
West Bengal’s side has argued that the ED, as an agency, cannot invoke fundamental-rights protections under Article 32 and that the matter should not be entertained in the form presented by the central agency. The state has also maintained that the case is being cast in exaggerated terms and has questioned the maintainability of the plea. But the court has repeatedly pushed back, asking in earlier hearings whether the agency should be expected to seek relief from the same state government headed by the person accused of obstructing the search. That line of questioning has steadily narrowed the space for the state’s jurisdictional defence.
The hearing carries political weight because it has unfolded at a delicate point in the Bengal Assembly election. The Election Commission scheduled voting in the state in two phases on April 23 and April 29, with the first phase opening on Thursday. The overlap between the legal battle and the campaign calendar has sharpened claims and counter-claims over the use of central agencies, the conduct of the state administration and the fairness of the pre-poll environment. The court itself referred to the situation as extraordinary in view of the prevailing circumstances in the state.
For the Trinamool Congress, the episode threatens to revive a long-running opposition charge that the state leadership has blurred the line between political defence and institutional intervention. For Banerjee and her party, however, the confrontation fits a narrative they have used repeatedly in Bengal: that central investigative agencies are deployed aggressively in politically sensitive moments and that state resistance is a defence against overreach. That argument has often found traction among supporters, but the court’s framing on Wednesday makes the political balancing act more difficult because it shifts attention from motive to method.
The controversy also lands at a time when I-PAC itself has been under intense scrutiny. The consultancy, long associated with election management and political strategy, has figured prominently in the Bengal political conversation since the January searches. This month, the agency broadened its action in the case, and one I-PAC director was arrested in the coal-linked probe, deepening the legal and political pressure around the firm and those connected to it. Parallel speculation over changes in I-PAC’s Bengal operations has added to the sense of disruption around one of the most influential campaign organisations in the state.