I-PAC raids case: SC reserves verdict on ED plea for CBI probe into Mamata Banerjee’s conduct

The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on whether the alleged obstruction of Enforcement Directorate raids should be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The raids targeted the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC and its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata. The issue matters because the ED says the operation was disrupted and evidence connected to a coal-smuggling investigation was removed.

The ED named West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, senior police officials, and the CBI in its petition. It alleged that Ms. Banerjee and State machinery intervened during the raids. According to the ED, physical and electronic evidence was taken away, creating a “gross obstruction of justice.”

A Bench headed by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra closed final arguments on October 29, 2026. Kapil Sibal, representing Ms. Banerjee, argued that the new State government could decide whether to transfer the case to the CBI. The Court’s forthcoming judgment will determine the next legal step described in the petition.

The ED, or Directorate of Enforcement, is India’s central agency for enforcing laws against money laundering and certain foreign-exchange violations. The CBI, or Central Bureau of Investigation, is a central criminal-investigation agency that handles serious cases such as corruption, economic offences, and other crimes assigned to it. Their responsibilities can overlap, but they investigate different legal questions.

In this case, the ED was already investigating a coal-smuggling syndicate and entities allegedly linked to hawala money. It asked the Supreme Court for a CBI probe into the alleged obstruction of its Kolkata raids. The ED’s focus was on financial evidence and possible money laundering; the requested CBI inquiry concerned whether officials unlawfully interfered with that investigation.

The distinction matters because agency choice affects who gathers evidence and examines alleged wrongdoing. The Court reserved judgment after final arguments. The source does not state the precise legal conditions governing any transfer, but it records that the petition seeks CBI involvement and that the State’s current dispensation could consider the transfer.

The petition identified four individual people: Mamata Banerjee, the State’s Director General of Police, the Kolkata Police Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Kolkata. It also named the State of West Bengal as a government body. The CBI was included as an agency alongside those respondents.

Counting the entities described in the petition, that means four people, one State government, and one named agency being asked to conduct the proposed investigation. The ED itself filed the petition and is therefore the applicant, rather than one of the respondents listed in the article. This distinction prevents the numbers from being confused.

The case concerns alleged interference with ED raids at I-PAC and Pratik Jain’s offices in Kolkata. The ED says the intervention involved State machinery and caused evidence to be removed. The Supreme Court has reserved judgment, so the article does not report a final decision on whether the CBI will investigate.

The ED alleges that Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal officials, and other individuals interfered with its raids at I-PAC and Pratik Jain’s offices in Kolkata. It specifically blamed Ms. Banerjee for removing records and devices from the raid sites. The agency says this intervention went beyond ordinary disagreement and disrupted a lawful investigation.

The alleged conduct included removing physical and electronic material connected to the probe. The ED says vital evidence was taken away while the raids were under way. It described the sites as scenes of a “showdown” caused by illegal intervention from State machinery. The agency characterised the incident as a “gross obstruction of justice.”

Ms. Banerjee disputed that account at the time. She said the raids were a deliberate attempt to derail the Trinamool Congress before the 2026 Assembly election. The Supreme Court has not announced its judgment. The allegations therefore remain claims presented in the case, while the next step depends on the Court’s decision.

The ED said it raided I-PAC’s offices and the premises of co-founder Pratik Jain as part of a probe into a coal-smuggling syndicate. It also linked the investigation to entities allegedly connected with hawala money. The stated purpose was to collect evidence under established legal safeguards, not simply to examine I-PAC’s political work.

The key mechanism was the alleged financial connection. The ED believed the sites could contain physical records and electronic devices relevant to the coal-smuggling and hawala-money inquiry. It argued that these materials were vital to tracing or understanding the suspected network. The article does not identify the specific entities or explain the precise money flows.

I-PAC had advised the Trinamool Congress on electoral and political strategy, including the 2021 Assembly election and later elections in West Bengal. Ms. Banerjee said the raids were designed to hurt the party before the 2026 Assembly election. The Court reserved judgment on the requested CBI probe into the alleged obstruction.

If records or electronic devices disappear during a raid, investigators may lose material needed to establish what happened. Documents can show transactions, contacts, or instructions. Devices may contain communications and files. Their removal can make it harder to trace an alleged network, test competing accounts, or preserve evidence for court.

That is the ED’s central claim here. It says physical and electronic evidence connected to the coal-smuggling investigation was removed from the I-PAC-related sites. The agency argues that the loss upset a lawful investigation and turned the raids into a “gross obstruction of justice.” The article does not state exactly which records or devices were taken.

The consequences could include delays, gaps in the evidentiary record, and difficulty proving links to the alleged hawala-money network. However, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the allegations. The judgment will address the ED’s request for a CBI probe into the alleged obstruction, rather than report a final finding that evidence was unlawfully removed.

Indian law distinguishes State police investigations from CBI investigations because they are conducted by different authorities. State police normally investigate crimes within their State, while the CBI is a central agency used for serious or specialised cases assigned to it. This distinction matters when allegations involve State officials or when confidence in a local investigation is questioned.

Here, the ED accused West Bengal’s political and police machinery of interfering with its raids. It therefore asked for a CBI probe into the alleged obstruction. The Supreme Court heard the request because the ED filed a petition seeking that change. A transfer would place the alleged interference under a central investigative agency rather than leaving the matter solely with State authorities.

The Court’s role is to examine the request and decide the next investigative route. Final arguments closed before Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra’s Bench on October 29, 2026, and judgment was reserved. The article does not state the detailed legal standard the Court will apply or whether a transfer will occur.