The Supreme Court is hearing the Enforcement Directorate's plea seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on allegations that she interfered with the agency's search operations at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder, Pratik Jain.
The ED has also sought the return of documents it claims were taken away by the Chief Minister after she obstructed their raids.
A Bench of Justices PK Mishra and Vipul Pancholi is hearing the matter.
A similar plea by the ED was first filed before the Calcutta High Court, which was unable to hear it when it was listed earlier on January 9 due to heavy crowding and commotion in the courtroom.
Yesterday, the High Court adjourned this plea on the ED's request after its counsel, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju told the Court that a similar plea is now pending before the top court.
Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress Party (TMC) also filed a petition before the High Court, seeking the protection of sensitive and confidential political data that it claimed was seized by the ED during the I-PAC raids.
This plea by the TMC was closed by the High Court yesterday after it recorded the ED's assurance that no such data has been seized.
Live updates from the hearing at Supreme Court feature on this page.
Hearing starts
SG Tushar Mehta, ASG SV Raju and Special ED Counsel Zoheb Hossain to lead arguments of Enforcement Directorate
SG Tushar Mehta: It reflects a shocking pattern emerging. When a statutory authority was discharging it's function... the CM Banerjee barges in, the Comm of police comes with her and then sits on dharna.
Justice Mishra: How is this maintainable?
SG Tushar Mehta: One is my ED, one is by an affected person and one by two officers. There have been instances where the joint directors home was gheraoed.. frantic calls were made.
SG Tushar Mehta: Officers of ED intimated local police and acting under section 17 PMLA was to probe IPAC and then all police officers, the CM Mamata Banerjee took away all the files. This is theft. She took a ED officer phone as well. This will only encourage such acts and the central forces will be demoralised. The state will feel they can barge in commit theft and then sit on dharna. Let an example be set where officers who were explicitly present there should be suspended.
Justice Mishra: So we should suspend them?
SG Tushar Mehta: Direct competent authority to act. Please take cognizance of what is happening. I have quoted section 54 PMLA in context of the officers.
SG Tushar Mehta: Here the police comes with CM Banerjee to ensure that evidence is taken away and removed. This is pure theft. I am seeking to implead the chief secretary and the departmental officers. Earlier CBI officers went and there was a judicial probe by this court to work on chit fund scam. CBI officers are arrested and taken to police station. CM stages a dharna.
Bench discusses
SG Tushar Mehta: We approached the High Court. Now see what happens when mobocracy overtakes democracy. See what the High Court judge observes in the order. It notes huge number of lawyers gathered creating commotion. She stated environment in court was not conducive for a hearing.
ASG Raju: I was there. I will tell you.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: I was also there.
Justice Mishra: Don't create ruckus here.
SG Tushar Mehta: I have placed on record the WhatsApp chats of the law wing. They were all instructed by the legal cell of the party. So it was innocent. It was intentional. Message says gathering today at gate number...
Justice Mishra: Was it jantar mantar?
SG Tushar Mehta: Yes court was converted into jantar mantar. They had arranged buses and transport also for those members. HC passed an order saying only lawyers will enter the court and the hearing will be live streamed.
SG Tushar Mehta: ASG Raju's mic was continuously muted yesterday.
SC: But that is in control of the court.
SG Tushar Mehta: I don't wish to say anything. But we are here to protect fundamental right of our officers. We are acting under the act and we do not seize for our personal gains.
SG Tushar Mehta: ED is just not a mere organ of the union. We exist for this very purpose..we attach property... We take property in possession...
SG Tushar Mehta: Suppose I am probing money laundering a bank, then the money recovered will go to the depositors. We represent the will of those victims of the offence. Here the second plea is by a ED officer. There are three FIRs against us and that ED did something illegal and based on that FIR they came to the scene of the offence and removed CCTV footage.
Justice Mishra: But why did you go there at all? What were you probing?
SG Tushar Mehta: This was a multi state money laundering case amounting to Rs 2,742 crores...
SC: You went for this?
SG Tushar Mehta: And it was gathered that illegally excavated coal was used to be sold at a company...
SG Tushar Mehta: Went to IPAC under section 17 search. The search proceedings started in 10 different locations of IPAC.
Justice Mishra: Is this the same IPAC in which Mr. Prashant Kishore was associated?
SG Tushar Mehta: Yes.
SG Tushar Mehta: What was there to hide that the chief minister had to barge in with the commissioner of police ? Sitting Chief minister entered the premise and violating all law and order... she took possession of all digital devices and three incriminating documents and left at 12:15 pm. The incident report was also drawn. Please see the totality of this. DG, police chief were all shown the documents. They had the courage to take incriminating material... it is taken and then showed to public. IPAC has not even filed a complaint.
SG Tushar Mehta: Let a message go once and for all.
Bench discusses
Justice Mishra: We will issue notice. This is a very serious matter. We will examine this.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal: Who is IPAC.. let me make my submissions. They know it. I am appearing for the Chairman of Trinamool Congress.
Justice Mishra: Let us hear. We are very disturbed in the way high court has been...
Kapil Sibal: Hearing happened yesterday. This court will have to assume that High Court cannot deliver justice.
SC: You cannot put words in my mouth. We will decide what to assume and what not to.
Kapil Sibal: High Court has to hear the case, deliver Judgment and then we go in appeal. They have launched parallel proceedings now.
Sr Adv AM Singhvi: The court says we are adjourning it sine die since case was pending here.
Kapil Sibal: IPAC we all know that it takes care of elections in West Bengal. Formal contract between TMC and IPAC in 202.
Justice Mishra: Elections in West Bengal is conducted by ECI or IPAC.
Kapil Sibal: All election data is confidential and it is all kept there. There will be a lot of info on candidates etc. why was the news to go there in midst of an election. Last statement in the coal scam was recorded on Feb 24, 2024. What were they doing since then? Why so keen in midst of the election? It is all the info that is in the computer. Once you have info.. how do we fight the election. Chairman has the right to protect it and thus went there.
Kapil Sibal: ED reached at 6:20 am and CM came at 12 pm and left at 12:15 pm. We are also very disturbed as to why ED shall wait for 2 years and then go to a place which is a part of party office. Please see section 105 of BNSS.
Kapil Sibal: Please see the video recording. It is a blatant lie that all digital devices were taken. See that panchnama also. This is just to create prejudice.
Kapil Sibal: Till 12:05 pm no seizure took place. It was only the laptop belonging to Pratik Jain and the phone of Pratik Jain was seized and she left the premise. Where all the devices? She took the personal iPhone and laptop which will have the election information. Panchnama notes the search and seizure was in peaceful manner. This is signed by ED. Averment in the plea is contradictory to their own panchnama. It has party and election material. They knew it.
Justice Mishra: If they had any intention to seize your election data. They would have taken it but they did not. You cannot stop us from issuing notice.
Kapil Sibal: Of course we can't we are only trying to persuade you
Kapil Sibal: Why was the need to start this just before elections. This is in your petition that the last statement was recorded in February 2024.
Justice Mishra: In the lighter vein what Mr. SG Mehta is suggesting that if money is laundered before elections then what can be done by ED!
SG Mehta: There are no elections in West Bengal
SC: At least not notified yet.
Kapil Sibal: If this is the knowledge which is coming out of the sg then what can be said
Justice Mishra: There was a schedule by CJI about time of arguments.
SG Mehta: It should also be said that lawyers cannot discuss such matters on shows.
Kapil Sibal: Also a circular so that your officials don't leak details to the journalists of their liking.
SC: This is not the place for this.
Kapil Sibal: Under section 66(2) if there is any offence it has to be reported to the probe machinery of the state. They are saying that charge them with these offences like trespassing etc. when their panchnama contradicts it.
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi: If notice is issued it must be made clear that there is strong opposition to the maintainability of this petition. It is only allowed in exceptional circumstances where the ED is completely helpless. I appear for the State of West Bengal and the DGP. I also raise the issue of forum shopping where the prayers are same in HC and SC. Yes you had an issue on January 9 but that cannot be an excuse to ride two different horses. Sometimes emotions go out of hand and we understand what the court is saying. Relevant test is yesterday.
SC: Emotions cannot go out of hand repeatedly.
SG Mehta: In an orchestrated manner.
AM Singhvi: HC with regard to comity of courts passed an order. Not disputing that. So that is forum shopping and then we come to the panchnama part. What is relevant is this.. either you are lying or your petition is lying. Search was conducted in peaceful and orderly manner...it is recorded.
SC: this shows they have done peacefully.
AM Singhvi: I am saying with this panchnama what you are projecting in the plea is false or your panchnama is false. So obstruction, can't do search etc. etc. is all false. Now SG said we were informed. We were only informed by a casual email.. saying 11:30 am. You started searching at 6:45 am.
SG Mehta: Email is email...
AM Singhvi: Please get your instructions clearly. So this is just an attempt to cover tract and create paper trail.
AM Singhvi: Please consider that we put in a reply without notice.
SC: Let it be done in a legal way.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (for Respondent 4 and 5): What has happened is subject to Article 226 court. January 9 disruption should not have a lingering effect for this court to issue notice. If the case proceeds smoothly then it is a better way to proceed.
(Plea seeking FIR against Mamata Banerjee)
ASG Raju: Recording of a FIR only requires a cognizable offence to be made out. Prima facie case of disclosing cognizable offence is enough for FIR. Hearing an accused is unheard of before registering the FIR. This is a case of theft, robbery and dacoity. This is a simple case of theft which is made out. This is settled law in Lalita Kumari.
ASG Raju: Registration of FIR is mandatory if cognizable offence is disclosed and no preliminary investigation is needed. That is not the scope and only averments in the complaint has to be seen. They cannot say they went to take their own material etc. here the CM is an accused and theft was considered in connivance with the director general of police. Head of police in West Bengal is an accomplice. She is the home minister as well. If any FIR is probe there... nothing will happen and that is why CBI probe is needed...
ASG Raju: If I don't come here directly then my fundamental right will be affected.
SC: Why cannot you continue in the HC? Continue post lunch.
Bench rises
Bench assembles
SG Mehta: Here ED officers are before you to seek protection of their article 21 right... they were threatened. I am here also for the rights of the victims of money laundering.
ASG Raju: We are praying for a stay in the FIRs which ED officers are facing. There is also a ground in a given case to transfer a case out of the state for probe when investigated by the CBI.
Justice Mishra: What is interim prayer?
SG Mehta: Stay on FIRs being faced by ED with respect to the searches held on January 8, 2026.
Order: In the first writ petition, it is filed by the Directorate of enforcement and it's Deputy director and the second petition is filed by the officers of ED who had gone to subject premises in course of ED probe. SG Mehta drew our attention to the series of events which led to the plea...
Justice Mishra: SG Mehta submits that it is not the first instance where CM interfered with an investigation and it happened also when CBI was probing an offence and thus a pattern when a probe is carried on by central agencies. It is contended that material was taken away in an illegal manner and that West Bengal government has filed FIR against the ED officers. SG says it is difficult to carry on probe in a case which runs into 2,742 crores...
Justice Mishra: It is also submitted that the legal cell of Trinamool Congress had sent WhatsApp messages to assemble in the court hall on January 9. SG Mehta submits that present is a serious matter which needs to be examined by this court and HC be not allowed to proceed. This is because high police officials of state govt is involved it would be appropriate for this court to examine this case in larger interest of justice.
Justice Mishra: ASG Raju submits recording of FIR in cognizable offence is mandatory in view of Lalita Kumari judgment. Thus when CM and DGP are involved, as per him, it cannot be expected that police subordinate to them shall conduct the investigation in a fair manner. Thus the present case be probed by CBI, it is submitted.
Justice Mishra: Shri Sibal and Shri Singhvi appearing submits that present petitions are not maintainable. It is submitted that there is a pattern of interference by ED in the name of investigation exactly when elections are due. He says when matter is pending in HC this plea may not be entertained.
Justice Mishra: It is also pointed out by the panchnama that nothing material was recovered. It is also argued that local police officials were not informed by ED before initiating the search in the morning of January 8. Shri Sibal says CM has not gone to the place as the CM but as the chairman of Trinamool Congress on information that some unauthorised persons have entered the premises of Pratik Jain who is taking care of party election work.
Justice Mishra: Having heard learned counsels, we are of the prima facie view that present plea has raised a serious issue relating to the investigation by ED and its interference by state agencies. For adherence to rule shield of law enforcement agency of a state. Law and to allow each organ to function independently... so thunders are not allowed to be protected under the shield of state agency.
Justice Mishra: There are larger questions which emerge and if not answered shall lead to lawlessness. If Central agencies are working bona fide to probe a serious offence a question arise can they be obstructed by party activities? Issue notice to the respondents. Let counter be filed in 2 weeks.
Justice Mishra: It is directed that respondents shall protect the CCTV footage of premises searched as on Jan 8.
Justice Mishra: It is also directed that the FIRs registered against the ED officers shall remain stayed.. till next date of hearing.
Singhvi: Please direct investigation without coercive steps. If stay is there, then let there be more time to apply.
SC: No no we could have passed the order after 10 minutes also. But since so much was argued it was important to record everything since everything is telecasted now.
SC: List on February 3, 2026