ED's records contradict claims that I-PAC searches were obstructed by police: West Bengal to Supreme Court

The State of West Bengal has told the Supreme Court that the searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the premises of political consultancy firm Indian Pac Consulting Private Limited (I-PAC) were not obstructed and the central agency's panchnama itself reveals this fact [Enforcement Directorate vs State of West Bengal]

Further, the Article 32 petition filed by ED against the State government alleging obstruct to ED searches is not maintainable since Article 32 can be invoked only by citizens against government agencies for violation of fundamental rights.

An instrumentality of the State like ED cannot claim violation of fundamental rights, the State has contended.

The stand has been taken in four separate counter-affidavits filed by the State government, the Director General of Police, West Bengal, the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, in response to the ED’s Article 32 petition concerning the searches at the IPAC office in Salt Lake and a residence of co-founder Pratik Jain at Loudon Street.

Background

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had entered the I-PAC office and the residence of its co-founder on January 8 while the ED was conducting searches in connection with a money-laundering probe.

Banerjee is alleged to have removed several documents and electronic devices from the premises. She claimed that the material contained information pertaining to her political party. According to reports, I-PAC has been associated with the Trinamool Congress since the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The ED has maintained that the searches were part of its investigation into a 2020 money-laundering case registered against businessman Anup Majee, who is accused of involvement in coal smuggling.

According to ED, a coal smuggling syndicate led by Majee used to steal and illegally excavate coal from ECL leasehold areas of West Bengal and then sell it at various factories/plants in West Bengal. ED has alleged that a large part of this coal was sold to Shakambhari Group of companies.

The ED initially moved the Calcutta High Court against Banerjee but the High Court could not hear the matter due to unruly commotion inside the courtroom.

ED then approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 accusing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State officials of interfering with the central agency's investigation and search operations.

According to the plea, its search operations at I-PAC office and residence of its co-founder were disrupted through the intervention of the West Bengal Chief Minister and State officials.

As per the petition, the intervention resulted in the removal of crucial physical and electronic material connected to the investigation and prevented officers from carrying out their duties in accordance with the law.

It said that a CBI probe should be ordered.

When the matter was heard on January 15, the Court said that there would be lawlessness in the country if it does not examine the issues raised by the ED.

Hence, it issued notice to CM Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar and others asked them to file their responses.

In response to the same, the State and others have now filed their responses.

No Article 32 case made out: State

In its affidavit, the State government has argued that the ED’s petition does not disclose any violation of fundamental rights and is therefore, not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The State has said that the ED is an instrumentality of the State and cannot claim fundamental rights for itself. It has also pointed out that the reliefs sought relate to criminal law and statutory remedies and not constitutional enforcement.

On facts, the State has noted that even as per the ED’s own narration, the chairperson of a political party enjoying Z plus security visited two premises during the searches and was later permitted to leave. According to the State, the ED did not record any contemporaneous objection at that stage.

The affidavit also points out that the ED has already approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 on the same cause of action and that the High Court proceedings have been adjourned in view of the Supreme Court case.

Salt Lake events linked to law and order, not investigation: DGP

The Director General of Police of West Bengal, Rajeev Kumar, has stated that he was not present during the initial stages of the searches and has denied the allegations made against him.

In relation to the IPAC office at Salt Lake, the DGP has said that police action was triggered after information was received that armed persons in camouflage were inside the premises and were not permitting police verification.

The affidavit records that an email from the ED informing about the search was received later in the morning and that by then a law and order situation had already developed, with crowds and media gathering in the area.

The DGP has stated that his role was limited to coordinating security and public order arrangements, particularly after information was received that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee would be visiting the area. He has said that she is an Z plus protectee and that security deployment was necessary.

According to the affidavit, by the time he reached the IPAC office, a written complaint had already been submitted and a police case registered. The ED search, it states, continued thereafter and concluded in the evening without any interference by the police.

Loudon Street role limited to security: Kolkata Police Commissioner

The Commissioner of Police of Kolkata has confined his affidavit to events at 7, Loudon Street (residence of co-founder Pratik Jain) and has stated that he had no role in the Salt Lake search, which falls outside his jurisdiction.

He has said that police presence at Loudon Street followed information about armed persons entering a residential building and refusing to identify themselves or allow lawful verification.

The Commissioner has stated that he reached the premises shortly before the Chief Minister arrived and that his presence was limited to security duties arising from her Z plus security status.

He has recorded that the Chief Minister arrived at around 12:05 pm and left about ten minutes later, and that he exited the premises immediately thereafter.

The affidavit denies any interference with the ED’s search and relies on the panchnama prepared by the ED itself, which records that the search was conducted peacefully and without damage to any person or property.

No interference, events wrongly clubbed: DCP South

The Deputy Commissioner of Police of South Division has similarly stated that his role was confined to Loudon Street and that the ED has wrongly clubbed two separate incidents under different police commissionerates into one narrative.

He has said that ED officers later disclosed their identity and requested him to accompany them inside the premises only for the limited purpose of verifying search authorisation.

The affidavit categorically denies that he issued any direction to stop the search, seized any documents, or threatened or restrained any ED officer.

The DCP has also stated that the search continued even after senior police officers left the premises and concluded peacefully in the afternoon.

The DCP has further objected to the ED’s prayer seeking transfer of investigation, stating that it is settled law that an accused has no right to choose the investigating agency.

He has also flagged that the ED has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and that the Supreme Court petition amounts to parallel proceedings.

Across the four affidavits, the West Bengal authorities have taken a consistent stand that the ED’s investigation was neither stopped nor obstructed, that police presence was driven by verification, law and order and security considerations, and that the ED’s own records contradict allegations of disruption.

They have also uniformly questioned the ED’s decision to invoke Article 32 in a dispute that raises factual and statutory issues rather than constitutional ones.