I-PAC case: Legal implications of SC order and impact of Centre-state tussle

This episode of Capital Beat examined the Supreme Court’s interim order staying FIRs against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officers in the I-PAC raid case linked to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

The discussion featured senior journalist Shikha Mukherjee and lawyer and human rights activist Kirti Roy, focusing on the legal implications of the court’s directions and the political fallout between the Centre and the West Bengal government.

The Supreme Court stayed the FIRs registered against ED officers until the next hearing in February and directed the preservation of CCTV footage of the premises searched on January 8.

The court observed that the plea raised serious questions about alleged interference by state agencies in an ED investigation and warned that the obstruction of central agencies probing serious offences could lead to lawlessness.

Also read: ED raids at I-PAC spark political confrontation in West Bengal | Capital Beat

Notices were issued, and the court directed that counter-affidavits be filed within two weeks, while related proceedings against ED officers would remain stayed until the next date of hearing.

Court’s observations and immediate directions

The Supreme Court noted that larger questions were involved in the matter and said that allowing such issues to remain undecided could worsen the situation, particularly in states governed by different political parties. It observed that while central agencies have no authority to interfere in election-related activities, they cannot be prevented from investigating serious offences if acting bona fide.

The court ordered that CCTV cameras and storage devices containing footage of the premises searched on January 8 be preserved. It also stayed further proceedings and investigations against ED officers until the next hearing.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing in the matter, submitted that courts normally avoid staying investigations and suggested that a direction of “no coercive steps” could have been considered instead.

Kirti Roy flags constitutional concerns

Kirti Roy described the situation as a constitutional crisis, stating, “It is a constitutional crisis. Government employees, police officers are getting impunity. There are systemic failures in our criminal justice system.”

Also read: ED, I-PAC and Mamata: A pre-poll tug-of-war over power, data and agencies

He argued that both the Centre and the state were elected governments with powers under the law and accused political parties of using institutions as instruments. “Political parties are taking their arms, ammunition, police machinery, courts, including judiciary, under control,” Roy said.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s observation on alleged interference by state agencies, Roy questioned the conduct of both sides. “I am questioning government ED action as well as Mamata Banerjee’s action. Both are taking law into their own hands according to their whims,” he said.

Debate over federal powers

Roy emphasised that law and order remains a state subject under the Constitution. “ED has power; police also has power,” he said, questioning why areas were not secured during the raid and how state officials entered the premises.

He referred to previous Supreme Court rulings, including the Maneka Gandhi case, stating, “Every government action should be just, fair and reasonable. Why is a raid is going on after 10 or 12 years? All cases are political, the accused are political, the prosecution is political.”

Also read: After I-PAC raids, Mamata accuses Amit Shah of taking coal-scam money

Roy maintained that the political confrontation would continue in the run-up to elections and said the court must pass a balanced order to retain public faith. “If it is one-sided, the Supreme Court will also be questioned before the people of India,” he said.

Shikha Mukherjee on perception and credibility

Shikha Mukherjee argued that the Supreme Court’s handling of the matter would shape public perception. “In a functional democracy governed by the rule of law, perception matters,” she said, citing past court observations.

She pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously criticised central agencies. “It has not garlanded the CBI and the ED with roses. It has called them a ‘caged parrot’ and ‘its master’s voice’,” she noted.

Mukherjee questioned whether the court now appeared to be defending central agencies. “Is the Supreme Court defending the ED and indicting Mamata Banerjee, or is it playing fair? We don’t know, because perception matters in the public domain,” she said.

Timing of the raid under scrutiny

Mukherjee stressed that the timing of the ED raid was central to the controversy. “The issue is not whether the ED should have raided. The ED is free to raid. The problem is the timing,” she said.

Also read: What is I-PAC and how is it connected with Mamata’s TMC?

She pointed out that the ED was present within the premises for several hours before Mamata Banerjee intervened. “From 6 am to 11 am, the ED was doing whatever it wanted. Those four hours have to be accounted for,” she said.

Mukherjee also questioned why details from multiple locations searched had not been made public. “Let them produce documents or do what they are very good at — sustained leaks of information,” she remarked.

ED’s public statements questioned

Mukherjee criticised the ED’s response to the controversy. “Nobody asked whether this was a political conspiracy, yet the ED issued statements defending itself, saying the search was evidence-based and not linked to elections,” she said.

She described the response as excessive, adding, “You don’t need three sentences to say the same thing. The lady doth protest too much.”

Also read: SC disturbed by Calcutta HC chaos, calls ED charges against Mamata ‘very serious’

Mukherjee said Mamata Banerjee had consistently maintained that the raid was politically motivated and that the Supreme Court’s order did not fundamentally change her stance. “Her position has been consistent from January 8 — that the Centre is acting against her,” she said.

Political escalation across states

The discussion also referenced similar confrontations in other states. Mukherjee cited instances in Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu, where state police actions followed ED raids. “This is a political backlash. The ED can’t handle it,” she said.

Roy echoed concerns about escalation and warned that repeated confrontations could undermine constitutional balance. “This political drama will go on until elections,” he said.

President’s Rule speculation dismissed

When asked whether the case could lead to dismissal of the West Bengal government under Article 356, both panellists rejected the possibility.

Also read: How Mamata turned ED raids to her advantage and neutralised BJP's Bengal plan

Roy described such a move as disproportionate. “President’s Rule would be another problematic weapon to resolve this small issue,” he said.

Mukherjee was categorical. “There is no way President’s Rule in West Bengal can help the BJP win. It would be political suicide,” she said, adding that invoking Article 356 would be a decision for the Prime Minister, not the court.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)