State Agencies Interfering With Central Probe a Serious Issue: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Monday termed the alleged interference of state agencies in a central probe a “very serious issue” while hearing a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. In the Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case, the apex court stayed further proceedings in FIRs lodged by West Bengal Police against ED officials and issued notices to key state authorities.

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: Bench flags serious constitutional questions

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed that the plea raises larger issues concerning the independence of investigations by central agencies and alleged obstruction by state machinery. The court said it was prima facie necessary to examine whether state law enforcement agencies can shield offenders and restrict bona fide investigations by central agencies, warning that such situations could lead to lawlessness if left unresolved.

Notices issued, FIRs stayed and evidence preservation ordered

The court issued notices to the State of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma, and Deputy Commissioner Priyabatra Roy. It also directed all respondents to preserve CCTV footage and electronic evidence related to the ED search conducted on January 8. The matter will be heard next on February 3, with counter-affidavits to be filed within two weeks.

Supreme Court ED Mamata Banerjee case: ED alleges shocking pattern

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta described the episode as reflecting a “shocking pattern” of obstruction in West Bengal. He alleged that during a lawful search under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at the office of I-PAC, linked to the Trinamool Congress, senior state officials accompanied the Chief Minister and removed files and electronic devices. The ED claimed such actions demoralise officers and directly violate the statutory duty of police to assist central agencies.

Defence counters, maintainability challenged by state and CM

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee, objected to the maintainability of the petition under Article 32, arguing that the matter could be heard by the Calcutta High Court. He maintained that the ED action was mala fide and aimed at disrupting the electoral process, asserting that only party-related devices were taken to protect confidential political data. The State of West Bengal, represented by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also raised objections, calling the petition forum shopping.

Allegations of theft, CBI probe sought

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju went further, alleging that offences of theft and robbery were made out and sought an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The ED contends that repeated interference by the state administration has compromised its ability to conduct the coal scam money laundering investigation independently.

The ruling has escalated tensions between the Centre and the West Bengal government, placing the spotlight firmly on federal balance, rule of law, and the limits of political authority during ongoing investigations.