ED Approaches Supreme Court Over Alleged Interference in Probe Linked to Political Consultancy Firm

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court of India, seeking judicial directions in connection with its investigation related to search operations conducted at the Kolkata offices of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and one of its co-founders. The matter has drawn attention following recent developments in the Calcutta High Court and is yet to be taken up for hearing by the apex court.

According to official submissions, the central agency has requested appropriate directions, including the registration of a case by another central investigative authority, and safeguards to ensure that its ongoing probe is not disrupted. The plea has been filed in the backdrop of events that unfolded during recent search operations and subsequent legal proceedings.

Background of the Case

The issue reached the Supreme Court after proceedings before the Calcutta High Court were adjourned on January 9 due to disturbances in the courtroom. The High Court was hearing petitions filed by both the Enforcement Directorate and the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) in relation to the same set of events.

The ED’s plea before the High Court sought judicial intervention to ensure the smooth continuation of its investigation and raised concerns over alleged hindrances faced during the execution of its statutory duties. The political party, on the other hand, moved the court seeking directions to prevent the disclosure of party-related information.

Given the circumstances, the High Court deferred the hearing to a later date, prompting the ED to move the Supreme Court for urgent relief.

ED’s Submissions Before the Apex Court

In its petition, the Enforcement Directorate has stated that its authorised search operations at premises linked to I-PAC, which were connected to an ongoing financial investigation, could not be carried out as intended. The agency has contended that developments at the site led to complications that, according to it, impacted the integrity of the search process.

The central agency has sought directions to ensure that investigative procedures are conducted without obstruction and that any material relevant to the probe remains secure. It has also requested the court to issue necessary orders to prevent any future interference in the investigation.

The ED has maintained that its actions were undertaken strictly within the framework of law and in accordance with powers granted under relevant statutes.

Political Context and Response

The political consultancy firm at the centre of the matter, I-PAC, has previously worked with multiple political parties, including the Trinamool Congress, and played a role in shaping electoral strategies during past elections in West Bengal.

The Chief Minister of West Bengal has publicly stated that the central agency’s actions were politically driven, a claim that the ED has denied. The agency has reiterated that its investigation is based on material evidence and follows due process.

These differing positions have added to the political and legal sensitivity of the issue, prompting close scrutiny from legal experts and observers.

Proceedings Before the Calcutta High Court

Earlier, two separate petitions were filed before the Calcutta High Court—one by the Enforcement Directorate and another by the ruling party in the state. While the ED sought judicial backing for its investigation and related reliefs, the political party requested protection against the alleged misuse of information.

However, the hearing could not proceed as scheduled due to disruptions in the courtroom, leading the High Court to adjourn the matter. The next date of hearing has been fixed for mid-January.

State Government’s Stand

In the meantime, the State of West Bengal has filed a caveat before the Supreme Court. A caveat is a legal measure that ensures no order is passed by the court without first hearing the concerned party. Through this step, the state government has indicated its intention to present its position before any interim or final directions are issued.

Legal experts note that the filing of a caveat reflects the seriousness with which the state is approaching the proceedings and ensures adherence to principles of natural justice.

Legal and Institutional Implications

The case highlights ongoing debates around the balance between investigative autonomy and federal principles. Central agencies are empowered to conduct investigations under specific laws, while state governments often emphasise the need to safeguard constitutional boundaries.

Senior legal commentators point out that the Supreme Court’s eventual observations or directions could have broader implications for how such situations are handled in the future, particularly in cases involving high-profile investigations and political stakeholders.

What Lies Ahead

The Supreme Court is expected to examine the ED’s plea in the coming days. The court’s response will likely focus on procedural safeguards, the rule of law, and ensuring that investigations proceed without prejudice while respecting the rights of all parties involved.

As the matter unfolds, attention will remain on the judicial process and the legal principles governing investigative actions. Until then, all sides have reiterated their commitment to placing their respective positions before the courts.