In a major legal and political escalation, the Supreme Court of India has stepped into the brewing conflict between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal government.1 The dispute, centered on raids conducted at the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC (Indian Political Action Committee), has sparked a “serious constitutional issue” regarding the independence of central agencies versus state sovereignty.2+1
The Flashpoint: Raids at I-PAC
The controversy began on January 8, 2026, when the ED launched search operations at I-PAC’s Salt Lake office and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain, in Kolkata.3 The agency stated the raids were part of a money-laundering probe into a ₹2,742-crore coal smuggling case, alleging that criminal proceeds were routed through hawala channels to the consultancy firm.4+1
The situation turned into a dramatic “showdown” when West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally arrived at the search site.5 The ED alleges that the CM, accompanied by senior police officials including the state’s DGP and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, entered the premises and forcibly took away “key evidence,” including laptops, files, and electronic devices.6
Allegations of “Obstruction of Justice”
The ED moved the Supreme Court seeking a CBI probe into the incident, characterizing it as a blatant “obstruction of justice.”7 Representing the agency, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the events as a “shocking pattern” where state machinery is used to intimidate central officers.8+1
Key allegations by the ED include:
- Theft of Evidence: Claims that the Chief Minister walked out with a laptop and a green folder containing incriminating records.9
- Intimidation: Allegations that ED officers were surrounded by a mob and their mobile phones were briefly seized.10
- State Overreach: The registration of FIRs by the Kolkata Police against ED officials for “theft” and “trespass” during the raid.11
The State’s Defense: “Political Vendetta”
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have vehemently denied these charges, framing the raids as “politically motivated” ahead of the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.12
The state government argued that:
- The ED was attempting to seize sensitive organisational data and election strategies belonging to the TMC, which I-PAC manages.13
- The agency failed to show proper warrants or provide timely intimation to local authorities.14
- The Chief Minister’s presence was a response to “illegal harassment” and an attempt to protect confidential political data that has no link to the coal scam.15
Supreme Court Intervention
On January 15, 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi issued a series of significant interim orders, dealing a temporary blow to the state government.16
| Court Action | Significance |
| Stay on FIRs | The Court stayed the investigation into FIRs registered by West Bengal Police against ED officials. |
| Preservation of Evidence | Directed the state to preserve all CCTV footage and storage devices from the raid sites and surrounding areas. |
| Notice to CM & Officials | Issued formal notices to Mamata Banerjee, the State DGP, and the Kolkata Police Commissioner. |
Judicial Observations
The bench expressed deep concern over the “lawlessness” that could prevail if central and state agencies continue to clash in this manner.17 Justice Mishra remarked:
“According to us, larger questions have been raised… which if allowed to remain undecided, would further worsen the situation.18 There will be a situation of lawlessness prevailing if different outfits governing different places allow such interference.”19+1
The Court also took note of the chaos that erupted at the Calcutta High Court on January 14, where protesting lawyers disrupted proceedings, forcing an adjournment.20 The Supreme Court described this as “very disturbing” and an affront to the rule of law.21+1
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for February 3, 2026.22 The case is expected to set a major precedent on whether a state government can exercise its law enforcement powers to block or investigate central agency officers while they are performing statutory duties.
For the TMC, the battle is about protecting its “political brains trust” (I-PAC) from what it calls “central harassment.”23 For the Centre, it is a test of the ED’s authority to investigate financial crimes without being stalled by state-level executive intervention.24+1