The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the petition of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against West Bengal Chief Mamata Banerjee for alleged interference during raids at I-PAC headquarters and its director Pratik Jain’s residence in Kolkata on January 8.
ED alleges Mamata, top officials barged into premises during ED raid
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, alleged that the CM and top police officials barged into the premises during search operations and seized crucial evidence linked to a coal smuggling scam. He said Mamata Banerjee stole ED officer's phone during I-PAC raid.
SG Mehta stated that the Chief Minister, along with the Director and Commissioner, were present at the scene and he alleged that the officers were sitting on a dharna (protest) with political leaders.
He cited the example of a previous incident where the house of a Joint Director of the CBI was gheraoed (surrounded) and stones were thrown. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Kalyan Banerjee appeared on behalf of the West Bengal government.
ED says crucial materials were seized during raids
SG Mehta further stated that there was concrete evidence to conclude that incriminating materials were there at the premises and the local police were informed, but despite this, the DGP, the Chief Minister, the Police Commissioner, the area DCP, and a large number of police personnel arrived at the scene, and the material was seized without proper authority. He termed this a crime of theft. According to the SG, the ED officer's mobile phone was also taken, and the Chief Minister even addressed the media.
SG Mehta stated that such incidents would deter officers from discharging their duties and would demoralise the central forces.
He requested the Supreme Court to set a precedent and direct the suspension of the officers present during the raid and order a departmental inquiry against them. Justice Mishra then asked whether the court should order the suspension.
Mamata govt files caveat in Supreme Court
Meantime, the West Bengal government filed a caveat in the top court, seeking that no order should be passed without hearing it in connection with the ED raids against political-consultancy firm I-PAC last week. A caveat is filed by a litigant in high courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that no adverse order is passed against it without it being heard.
The ED has also alleged that Banerjee entered the raid sites and took away "key" evidence, including physical documents and electronic devices, from the premises of I-PAC and obstructed and interfered with the investigation in the case.
The ED has further claimed in its plea that the chief minister's presence at the search site and the alleged removal of documents had an intimidating effect on officers and seriously compromised the federal probe agency's ability to discharge its statutory functions independently.
ED alleges repeated obstructions by state govt
The ED has alleged repeated obstructions and non-cooperation by the state administration and sought directions for an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), contending that a neutral central agency is necessary in view of the "interference" by the state executive.
Prior to approaching the Supreme Court, the ED on January 9 knocked on the doors of the Calcutta High Court, seeking a CBI probe against Banerjee, alleging that the Trinamool Congress (TMC) supremo, with the aid of police, took away incriminating documents from the agency's custody during the raid at Jain's house.
The ED's plea in the apex court follows events from January 8, when the agency conducted searches on the premises of I-PAC and Jain in Kolkata as part of a money-laundering probe into the alleged multi-crore-rupee coal-pilferage scam.
During the search operation, Banerjee reached the I-PAC office along with senior TMC leaders, confronted the ED officials and allegedly took away documents from the premises. The chief minister has accused the central agency of overreach. The West Bengal Police has also registered an FIR against ED officers. The TMC has denied the ED's allegation of obstruction. It has further alleged that the ED action against I-PAC, the election consultant of the party, was aimed at accessing confidential election-strategy material.
Also Read:
