Raju: The IIC is a complainant himself. It (the mail informing of raid) was seen at 10am and he registered an FIR after that. These are ex facie bogus FIRs.

Court: how can this be. He has seen at 10am and then saying some officers in civil came etc.

Raju: this is their affidavit. This is the reasons why I will not get justice in my FIR if it is registered before local police.

Court: this is DGP’s affidavit? He’s saying at 10am he has seen and yet at 12pm registers an FIR on the behest of the CM? I want to say so many things but everything is reported….

Raju: the email was received at 10 o’clock. They received the mail at 10. 12:45 they registered an FIR and say somebody “claimed” to be ED officers. They gave stated false facts in the FIRs.

Raju: Kindly look at respondent no. 5 (Priyabrata Roy, DCP’s) affidavit. 11:50am he says they are officials of ED. Identity was disclosed. At 12:00pm he says unknown persons. The same is written by the commissioner of police. Attempt was made to file a false FIR on the face of it. This is as per their pleading. It’s their own case.

Raju: Despite knowing that they are ED officers, they have registered an FIR saying unknown persons claiming to be ED officers have conducted the search.

Raju: magistrate can only direct “officer-in-charge” of police station. But if OIC is also under the respondents, there’s no fair investigation which can ever happen.

Raju: The only power that a magistrate has under 156(3) is to direct an officer of police station to conduct an inquiry. If I go to an officer in charge of a police station who is under all these heavy and mighty accused, then it’s not going to be a fair investigation.

Court: the reason why you have come under 32 is also the reason why you cannot go to the police station?

Raju: Yes. Therefore, 156(3) is no remedy.

Raju takes the court through the rights of victims against whom an offence has been committed.

Raju: the right is to have a proper investigation without an apprehension that it may be biased.

Raju refers to section 2(14) of the BNS.

Raju: injury may not always be visible.

Raju: Personal offences have been committed against them (ED officers). They are victims.

Court: but most of them are not made out.

Raju: that the investigation will find out. Prima facie they are.

Court: but the premises were not yours. It was Pratik Jain’s. So how can it be theft? You may say offences were made out after investigation. We cannot record a finding that it is made out.

Raju: it is our case.

ASG Raju: Here’s the person who authorised the search. See the authorisation dated 7.1.2026. They were present during search, offences were committed against them. There was theft, robbery etc but I will not get into that. The case is that during the search they (the respondents) took into possession certain decided and documents. They were wrongfully confined is also their case.

SG Mehta ends his submissions. ASG SV Raju begins.

Mehta: A department of the government having a law and order issue with the state functionary can never be article 131 issue. 131 dispute is between state as a constitutional unit and centre as a constitutional unit. Like a river dispute etc. and to say that this has to go before a constitutional bench… day in and day our 32 petitions are filed…

Mehta: the officers in their personal capacity is before your lordships seeking their article 14 rights. That is my respectful submission.

Mehta: Another article argument was article 131. That this would be a dispute between the centre and the state. First of all, on the face of it there is nothing that central govt has to do with this issue. State also has nothing to do. The president of a political party who happens to be the CM is the accused and officers of ED who draw salary from Union are on one side. It is preposterous to argue that this case would be under 131.

Mehta: When a police officer in uniform is placed under suspension and he is approaching this court or the high court. If his capacity as an individual is different and his capacity as an officer is different, then he can never approach for his fundamental rights. He may be facing an illegal act in his official capacity, but the consequences will be on his person.

Court: So therefore you are proceeding in official capacity. But fundamental rights are person centric.

Mehta: merely because someone discharges their official duty does he cease to be a “person”?

Court: Apart from ED is offence is qua the individual.

Mehta: if ED has to sell certain properties, it is not doing any business. Article 19 centric judgements can never decide. ED is a mechanism under the statute. It represents its officers in pointing out that their article 14 rights are violated. If ED officer is detained violative of 20,21…. ED is representative of petitioner no. 2 whose rights have been violative. When we start using article 19 judgements for the purpose of deciding the present case, that is where the confusion is created. It is my right to be proceeded in accordance with law. When I say right it is right of my officers.

Mehta: Dr. Singhvi argued that ED is not a citizen. Forget ED. Petitioner no. 2 is a citizen. Article 19 says “no citizen can be deprived”. “Equality of law” in article 14 would mean rule of law. ED is in a representative capacity. It may not itself have fundamental rights. All agencies going in a particular state are treated with brutal force in the presence of highest political executive.

Court: The officers of ED are also representing the ED, therefore they don’t have fundamental rights- this was the argument.

Court: Their argument was that you are a department of union of India and there is no permission from union of India

Mehta: forget all that. petitioner no 2 is an individual who is personally aggrieved. Your lordships know it’s a pattern of incidents. Your lordships has inherent jurisdiction. Your lordships can exercise powers even on a postcard. No locus standi, no filing of petition etc is needed.

Mehta takes the court through precedents that have held rule of law to be part of article 14 of the constitution.

Mehta: petitioner no. 2 (director ED) is a victim is an offence.

Court: but you are not victim of an offence. You may be representing one.

Mehta: we are a victim in the sense that the documents collected by us is taken away.

Court: you are saying victim of the offence qua the FIR registered against you?

Mehta: yes.

Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (appearing for Mamata Banerjee) joins the podium.

SG Mehta: for the first time I find his presence (Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal’s) in the courtroom very soothing. He knows the context.

Mehta: Rule of law is a part of article 14. Rule of law means wherever and whenever the state fails to perform its duty, the court can step in. The facts and circumstances which I have already pointed out results in violation of article 14 of the officers who went there to discharge their duties.

Hearing resumes.

Bench breaks for lunch. Hearing to resume at 2pm.

Mehta: Please see the FIRs filed by the chief minister. The person from whose custody all the documents are going is not the complainant. He knows what was recovered by the ED and what was incriminating with regard to that offence. There are 4 FIRs. 2 by the CM, rest by the police themselves. Maintainability cannot be divorced from the facts emerging from each particular case. It cannot be argued as an abstract proposition of law. There is nothing off the scheme. The rule of law argument is to bring it within Article 14.

Mehta: after the CM came, she went somewhere else to attend a program and he stayed in the IPAC premises. He remained there till she returned. He very obediently remained at the location, leaving the security of the Hon’ble CM.

Mehta: Please see the CM’s affidavit. She believes that some political documents are being taken. She doesn’t find out what is political and what is an investigation of crime… see the DGP’s affidavit and his justification of being there. The facts are not disputed. Only the version is. I say he was there, but there was some purpose; he says it was for another purpose. To provide protection for the CM because she’s a Z-category protectee. Unusual presence of the CM, unusual presence of the DGP - this is the same.

Mehta: Can I go and file an FIR there where I myself am facing an FIR? Some independent neutral agency under your lordships' directions will have to investigate this. They snatched away documents. Let their case be investigated and my version also be investigated by the CBI.

Mehta: I have given sufficient evidence to show that we were not allowed to discharge our official duties. Natural persons discharging their office duties under the statute are now facing FIRs. Therefore, the prayer is to direct the CBI to register FIRs and investigate the entire incident… I cannot go and file this FIR before West Bengal police that investigate your chief minister

Mehta: We (ED) act on behalf of victims of money laundering. and we return the money. It is not my case that ED is a juristic person etc. The proceeds of crime are in the form of money. That money, when we recover, we confiscate it to the central government, and then the special court can direct the central government to restore such confiscated property…

Court: who is the victim in this case? It’s coal India limited. It’s not a natural person. Every government organisation is established to protect the rule of law. And everybody then can maintain 32 petition.

Mehta: We are officers of the ED. We are harassed and facing criminal investigation. FIRs are registered by the West Bengal police.

SG Mehta: The sitting CM in the present case has actively caused obstruction of investigation. Rule of law ceases to operate when political executive uses state machinery to obstruct investigation.

Mehta: Then the Chief Minister barged in in the present case, we asked what the DGP etc were doing… on affidavit they have said that since she is a Z category protectee, they were there for her protection. As if the DGP is the personal PSO of the chief minister.

Mehta: I am showing what the level of violation of rule of law. And rule of law is a part of article 14. These are contemporaneous facts.

Court: is this incident contemporary?

Mehta: No. This was a 2019 incident. Thereafter, when the chief minister sat on dharna, the uniformed police officers sat with her on dharna.

Mehta shows photographs to the court.

Mehta: This is not an isolated first of a kind incident. There is a pattern. The CBI was conducting an investigation based on orders of this court. This is another investigation by the CBI. This is not a standalone case. The chief minister has made a pattern to take law into her own hands and misuse the state police whenever a crime is investigated which is not to her liking. Team of CBI officials wanted to visit the then police commissioner. He is now a member of Rajya Sabha (Rajeev Kumar). The CBI officers were ARRESTED by the local police and taken to a police station and intimidated there. In yet another shocking incident the CM barged into the regional office of the CBI, simultaneously a large crowd was sent at the residence of the joint director of CBI. He was gheraoed.

Mehta: The WhatsApp group chats show that the ruckus created inside Calcutta HC was orchestrated in the WhatsApp group of the party.

Court: How do you correlate this to maintainability?

Mehta: One of the submissions made is that we should go to the High Court..as an alternative. We did approach the High Court. High Court records that it’s not conducive for hearing.

Court: This we have referred while issuing notice.

Mehta: The facts are so embarrassing, they don’t go into it. That’s why they (opposite side) talk about Dr. Ambedkar, Mr. Seervai etc.

Guruswamy stands up.

Mehta: I request you to please sit down.

Guruswamy: How can you request me to do anything? We are in my lord’s courtroom.

Mehta: She (Mamata Banerjee) along with hundreds of police officers entered the premises around 12:40pm. Police officers took away the documents collected and indexed by the ED officers, the backup of the computer system was also stopped midway. Storage devices of security cameras were also taken away. Mobile phones of IPAC employees were also taken away. The person who was part of syndicate, and was being investigated, was being protected at that level in this manner.

Mehta: West Bengal police has registered a case against one of the officers. Rule of law is part of article 14. Article 14 is a fundamental right and hence I can file a 32 petition.

Mehta: Dr. Ambedkar never conceived this situation. The raid was based upon the chain of investigation and the material gathered. The search proceedings were started at 10 different premises on 8.1.26. One of those premises were that of Pratik Jain. They were not Tom dick and harry who entered. We presented the authorisation letter. During the search, police had arrived and asked the officers to inform the local police if they wanted to continue the search. Various devices were taken into possession which were suspected to be relevant to the PMLA investigation. Priyabrata Roy, DCP visited the premises and informed that complaint for house trespass has been received.

Mehta: There is a total failure of law and order situation in West Bengal. This is my legal submission. I will demonstrate how rule of law is violated. This is a case where there is illegal smuggling of coal and the total amount runs to 2700cr. The ED and their individual officers who are also citizens of India discharging their statutory functions, are seeking protection of their fundamental rights.

Mehta: Everything was argued that ED is not a citizen, ED is not a person etc. no one told that petitioner no. 2 (Robin Bansal) is a deputy director of the ED.

Guruswamy: You behave like an unelected crown and a monarch.

Mehta: Dignified silence. I cannot behave like a street fighter.

Guruswamy: He’s neither dignified nor silent. He's neither of those.

Court: Why do you compare the word inside the court and outside the court? We try to hear the arguments silently… We can’t stop the media. Once we start saying anything, it is picked up. Either party uses this… at times for us… whether to say anything…

Guruswamy: I know your lordships is pained the way the proceedings of this court is used.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is making submissions defending the maintainability of ED's plea.

SG Mehta: The objection on maintainability can never be tested on abstract propositions of law. Some facts will be relevant. Come to WP 16/2026

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy (representing a police officer from West Bengal): We are on maintainability. All submissions advanced… my friend is using your lordships proceedings as a social media weapon in a political campaign. Is this how your lordships court is abused? Please don’t abuse the proceedings of this court as a tool to be used on social media.

The Supreme Court is hearing the Enforcement Director’s (ED) plea against West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC leader Mamata Banerjee, accusing her of interfering with its probe at I-PAC’s Kolkata office.

A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and NV Anjaria is hearing the matter.

Yesterday, the Court had orally observed that Banerjee’s alleged actions had imperilled democracy. The State police has, meanwhile, questioned the maintainability of the ED's plea before the Supreme Court.

Track this page for live updates from the hearing.