Kumar Bahukhandi
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee visits the I-PAC office in Salt Lake, during an ongoing ED raid. File. – Photo Credit:channel24india.com
The ED would commence its rejoinder arguments on April 23, following which the court is expected to reserve the case for orders
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday April 22, 2026 said West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s conduct of “walking into the midst” of an ongoing Directorate of Enforcement (ED) raid at I-PAC premises in Kolkata in January cannot translate to a Centre-State dispute.
A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria was responding to an argument made by the West Bengal government side, represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, that the writ petition filed by the ED in the apex court for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation against Mamta Banerjee, senior police and State officials who accompanied her.
Guruswamy said the Union Government had to move the Supreme Court in an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution as ED, being a Central agency, was part of it.
“But this cannot be construed as a dispute between the State and the Centre. A Chief Minister cannot just walk into an ongoing investigation… This is not per se a dispute between the State of West Bengal and the Union of India. This is per se an act committed by an individual who happens to be the Chief Minister of the State,” Justice Mishra reacted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the ED, intervened to allege that Banerjee had walked out of the site of the raid with incriminating evidence in her possession.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, also for the West Bengal side, argued that an aggrieved complainant, in this case the ED, cannot insist that a particular agency should investigate his case. The aggrieved person could only urge that a proper and fair investigation be done.
But Justice Mishra interjected to point out the recent incident in Malda where seven judicial officers involved in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls were detained. The judge asked whether it would have been enough if the judicial officers’ case was heard by a Magistrate.
Justice Mishra said the current situation faced by the ED was an “extraordinary” one.
“This is an extraordinary situation… We cannot shut our eyes to realities. You may argue legal principles before us as a counsel, but let us not lose sight of the practical situation which is occurring on the spot in the State… Do not compel us to make observations. It would be reported tomorrow and you would say the court said this in the midst of elections… But what can we do?” Justice Mishra observed.
The ED would commence its rejoinder arguments on April 23, following which the court is expected to reserve the case for orders.
In an earlier hearing, the court had asked what would Mamta Banerjee’s “legal reaction” be if, in a reversal of fortune, she came to power in the Centre in 2030-2031, and a Chief Minister from an opposing political party “barged” in and disrupted a raid by a central agency.
The ED’s petition is an off-shoot of its “interrupted” raid at the I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain’s residence and offices.
The poll-bound State’s ruling Trinamool Congress party is reported to consult I-PAC on electoral and political strategy. The ED’s case is that Chief Minister Banerjee intruded on the raids and took away paper and digital evidence from the scene.
