Mamata Banerjee I-PAC Case: What the Supreme Court Must Now Decide

Ten months after Enforcement Directorate officers searched the Kolkata office of the political consultancy I-PAC, the Supreme Court has to answer a narrower question than the one the ED first brought to it. On Thursday, 29 October, a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria reserved its order on whether the CBI should investigate the ED’s allegation that Mamata Banerjee, then Chief Minister, and senior police officers obstructed the search, or whether West Bengal’s new government should decide that for itself. Banerjee denies obstructing anyone. The allegations are unproven, and no FIR has been ordered against her.

What Happened on 8 January

The ED searched I-PAC’s office and the home of its co-founder Pratik Jain on 8 January as part of a money laundering investigation into an alleged coal smuggling racket. The agency says it had evidence linking Jain to hawala transactions and cash deals, and denies any political motive, The Week reported.

The ED alleges that Banerjee arrived during the search with police personnel and senior officials, interfered with the investigation and took away files. Banerjee said the same day that she had “brought back” Trinamool Congress documents and hard disks holding details of the party’s candidates for the 2026 Assembly election, and called the raids a BJP conspiracy carried out through the agency. Her lawyers later told the Supreme Court that the ED had waited two years and then raided I-PAC close to the polls.

Also read Trinamool Symbol Dispute: Supreme Court Gives Factions 20 Days

How the Case Reached the Supreme Court

A hearing in the Calcutta High Court was put off amid what The Week described as “enormous disturbance and commotion” in the courtroom. The ED moved the Supreme Court on 10 January; Banerjee filed a caveat the same day so no order could be passed without hearing her.

On 15 January a bench of Justices Mishra and Vipul Pancholi stayed the cases Kolkata Police had registered against ED officials over the search, ordered CCTV footage and digital records preserved, and said the petition raised serious questions. “When central agencies are trying to investigate a serious crime, how can someone obstruct it?” the bench asked, Kerala Kaumudi reported. The ED’s plea seeks FIRs against Banerjee, then Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, then Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Kumar Verma and others, and a CBI probe.

Why the Change of Government Matters

The BJP won the West Bengal Assembly election, and Suvendu Adhikari was sworn in as the state’s first BJP Chief Minister on 9 May. The police force the ED once said it could not trust now answers to a government opposed to Banerjee.

That shift is the heart of the order the court has reserved. Kapil Sibal, for Banerjee, argued that the new state government is free to refer the case to the CBI itself, so no court direction is needed. Justice Mishra asked why the state could not do so now, observing that the situation in which the ED came to court may no longer exist, IANS reported.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the ED, argued the opposite: a referral by a BJP government against a Trinamool leader would itself be attacked as politically motivated, senior police officers are among the accused, and the cross-cases on both sides should be examined by one agency, LiveLaw reported.

What the Court Has Not Yet Been Asked to Decide

The reserved order does not decide whether Banerjee obstructed the search. It decides who investigates. Whatever the court rules, three things remain unexplained in the public record: what the ED says was in the files taken from the premises, how much of the CCTV footage the court ordered preserved has been examined, and why, by Banerjee’s account, the agency acted when it did.

No date has been given for the order. IPB’s coverage of other cases and policies explained is in In-depth Analysis.

Source: Supreme Court hearing of 29 October 2026 in Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal, W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026, as reported by LiveLaw. Also based on reporting by IANS, The Week, Kerala Kaumudi and Outlook.

Image: Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (file photo) / Wikimedia Commons.