ED moves Calcutta HC after Mamata intervenes in I-PAC raid

The Enforcement Directorate’s money-laundering investigation into alleged coal smuggling took an unexpected constitutional turn on Thursday, when the central agency marched to the Calcutta High Court alleging that West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress (TMC) supremo Mamata Banerjee had “misused constitutional authority” to interfere in a lawful search and seize documents from political consultancy firm I-PAC.

After drawing the attention of Justice Shubhra Ghosh, the ED obtained permission to file a case, with a hearing likely on Friday. It is an extraordinary escalation, pitting a serving chief minister’s conduct against the Centre’s financial watchdog inside a judicial forum.

The events that triggered the suit began early on Thursday morning, when the ED launched coordinated searches at ten locations — six in West Bengal and four in Delhi — under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Two Kolkata addresses became the epicentre of controversy: the Salt Lake office of I-PAC and the Loudon Street residence of its founder-director Pratik Jain. Investigators say they were looking for digital and paper records linked to alleged financial irregularities in a coal syndicate case. The ED insists no political party office was searched, that the operation had “no link to elections”, and that the exercise was entirely evidence-driven.

As officers sifted through devices and documents at Jain’s residence, Banerjee arrived without advance intimation. A short while later, she entered I-PAC’s Salt Lake office as well, flanked by senior police and administrative officers. Eyewitnesses saw her leaving with files and a laptop before departing in her official vehicle.

Hours later, in a public statement, the ED claimed that the chief minister had forcibly taken away “documents and digital evidence”, arguing that officers could not prevent her due to her position and the presence of state personnel. This, the agency says, amounted to obstruction and removal of materials under search, justifying its approach to the high court.

Banerjee, for her part, seized the narrative immediately. Addressing the media, she alleged that the Centre was attempting to “steal her party’s political strategy”, describing the entire operation as undemocratic, unjust and orchestrated by the BJP.

I-PAC has long been embedded in the TMC’s campaign apparatus, and her decision to physically retrieve materials allowed her to frame the raid not as a financial probe, but as an attempt to sabotage electoral preparation. The BJP countered by accusing her of unconstitutional interference, with leader of the opposition and state BJP chief Suvendu Adhikari demanding consequences for obstructing a lawful search.

The broader opposition reacted with a cool distance. The CPI(M), reluctant to defend I-PAC (whose data-driven electioneering it has frequently criticised), used the moment to highlight what it sees as a deeper institutional rot: investigative agencies being “weaponised from Delhi”, and chief ministers responding with personalised executive muscle rather than process.

For the Congress, the episode was further evidence that both the Union and states are eroding democratic norms — Central agencies must not act as political instruments, they argued, but constitutional officers must not breach legal procedure either. Both parties seemed to agree on one point: the fight was less about coal and more about political power.

What might otherwise have been a routine financial search has, therefore, morphed into a dense battle over evidence-handling, federal jurisdiction, and electoral warfare.

Legally, the high court may now be asked to clarify the limits of a chief minister’s conduct during an active federal probe and the ED’s own obligations when state authorities intervene. Politically, the episode arrives at a moment when West Bengal is once again gearing up for high-stakes polls, and both the TMC and BJP have been searching for narrative advantage.

For Banerjee, the optics are clear: she is positioning herself as the defender of democratic contestation against an overbearing Centre. For the BJP, the confrontation reinforces its portrayal of the TMC leadership as allergic to scrutiny and willing to override legal norms. For the CPI(M) and Congress, it is simply the latest reminder that institutions are being bent by both sides for tactical ends.

As the matter moves from raid site to courtroom, West Bengal is left confronting a question that has begun to recur across India’s federal landscape: what happens when political rivalry leaps from rallies and campaigns into the machinery of law enforcement itself? However the high court rules, the precedent it sets could shape the grammar of future confrontations between constitutional offices and investigative agencies — well beyond the walls of I-PAC’s Salt Lake office.