New Delhi: The Supreme Magistrate on Thursday stepped into a stormy legal wrestle between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal government.
What did the Supreme Magistrate decide?
The top magistrate has stayed the FIRs lodged by West Bengal Police versus ED officials linked to raids at political consultancy I-PAC’s offices. It moreover issued a notice to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state officials, asking them to reply within two weeks to the ED’s allegations.
“Issue notice to the respondents. Counter testimony be filed within two weeks. Post the matter on February 3, 2026. In the meanwhile it is directed that, the respondents (West Bengal government) shall preserve the CCTV cameras at I-PAC and other cameras containing the footage of nearby areas," the seat said.
The bench, led by Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi, moreover directed that CCTV footage from the I-PAC site and surrounding areas be preserved while the matter is pending.
Why is the Supreme Magistrate hearing this case?
The dispute stems from raids carried out by the ED on January 8 at I-PAC's Salt Lake office in Kolkata and at the home of its director, Pratik Jain, in connection with a inside probe.
The ED had filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution asking the Supreme Magistrate to intervene. It urged the magistrate to uncontrived the Home Ministry, the Department of Personnel & Training, and the West Bengal government to suspend senior police officials who, the ED claims, failed to support its lawful actions.
What did ED say?
The Enforcement Directorate claims that state authorities, including the Chief Minister, obstructed the searches and took yonder electronic devices and documents that were crucial to the investigation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, seeming for the ED, accused Mamata of "barging in and interfered", "whenever statutory authorities exercised statutory power."
"It reflects a very shocking pattern emerging. In past also, whenever statutory authorities exercised statutory power, CM barges into premises."
The organ claims its officers were obstructed, intimidated, and plane had documents and devices taken yonder during the undertow of the operation.
“Director, Commissioner accompanied her. They were accomplices. Officers sat on dharna with political leaders. One officer is personally aggrieved... Joint Director, CBI's house was gheraoed...stones were pelted,” said SG Mehta.
During Thursday’s hearing, the Supreme Magistrate described these claims as “very serious” and said it would squint into whether interference by state officials in a inside investigation could set a dangerous precedent.
The magistrate moreover noted its snooping well-nigh reported unconnectedness in the Calcutta High Magistrate during older proceedings on the matter.
What are the main claims from each side?
The Enforcement Directorate alleges that Mamata Banerjee and top state police officers intervened during the search, removed key materials and prevented the probe from progressing. The ED’s lawyer told the Supreme Magistrate that this kind of interference could discourage inside agencies from delivering out lawful investigations.
The West Bengal government, represented by senior well-wisher Kapil Sibal, has rejected these accusations. They oppose that the High Magistrate should have had the first say on disputes welling from the raids and that unescapable the Supreme Magistrate directly was inappropriate. They moreover say the ED’s claims are exaggerated and politically motivated.
What happens next?
The Supreme Magistrate has set the matter for remoter hearing on February 3 without receiving responses from the state government and the Chief Minister’s office. The stay on the FIRs ways that West Bengal Police cannot proceed with their criminal investigations versus ED officials until the magistrate rules further.
