Calcutta High Court Disposes TMC Petition After ED's No-Seizure Claim
The Enforcement Directorate made a significant statement before the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday. The central agency clearly stated that its officials did not seize any items during their January 8 searches. These searches targeted the Salt Lake office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director Pratik Jain.
ED representatives emphasized that no data backup was taken during these operations. This submission directly addressed concerns about confidential political information.
Court's Response and Order Details
Justice Suvra Ghosh presided over the hearing and issued a two-page order. The court noted that ED's panchanama documents supported the agency's claims. These seizure lists corroborated the statement that nothing was taken.
Based on this information, the High Court disposed of the Trinamool Congress petition. The party had sought protection for what it called "political confidential data" allegedly seized during the searches. TMC wanted this data preserved and prevented from leaking to media or political opponents.
Adjournment of ED's Petition
The ED counsel made another important request during the hearing. They asked the court to adjourn proceedings on their own petition filed on January 9. This petition seeks a CBI investigation against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and several state police officers.
ED lawyers argued that the Supreme Court is currently hearing the same issue. Justice Ghosh agreed to this request and adjourned the case for two weeks.
Heated Exchanges During Virtual Hearing
The 82-minute hearing was live-streamed with only pleading counsel allowed in the courtroom. It featured intense arguments between lawyers representing both sides.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the Enforcement Directorate. At one point, he made a striking statement about data protection. "The record was seized by Mamata Banerjee," Raju claimed. "Unless she is made a party, these prayers can't be granted, as no record has been seized by ED, but all records have been seized by Mamata Banerjee and her cohorts."
Trinamool counsel Menaka Guruswamy responded sharply to this assertion. "Let his statement be recorded that nothing was seized," she told the court. Both lawyers participated in the hearing virtually.
Arguments About Petition Maintainability
ED pressed for adjournment from the beginning of the hearing. ASG Raju argued that Trinamool's petition should not be heard at all. He claimed the party was not listed as a 'caveator' in the Supreme Court case.
Guruswamy countered this position firmly. "We only request that our political data be protected and not released in media and not used in political fashion," she stated. The TMC lawyer added, "Unlike Mr Raju, I don't bully courts."
Advocate Kumarjyoti Tewari, representing the Union of India, questioned the petition's maintainability. He noted that ED conducted raids at locations not officially listed as Trinamool addresses. Tewari also pointed out that while the petition emphasized SIR, the Election Commission had not been made a party to the case.
Questions About Petition Authorization
ASG Raju raised additional concerns about the TMC petition's validity. He questioned why former Trinamool Rajya Sabha MP Subhasish Chakraborty signed the document. Raju argued that Chakraborty was a "third person" with no direct knowledge of the searches.
"The petition is filed by a stranger...Where is the authority?" Raju asked the court.
Guruswamy defended her client's position vigorously. "It is inappropriate to bully a political party when it believes that its data was housed by the political strategist," she responded. "It is a well-founded fear we had and that is why we came to court."
The TMC lawyer explained that authorization came from a national working committee member. She noted that the affidavit signatory is a legitimate party member. Guruswamy expressed suspicion about the timing of searches at their political strategist's office before elections.
Personal Remarks and Procedural Disputes
The hearing included several personal exchanges between counsel. Guruswamy objected to how ASG Raju referred to the Chief Minister. "Have some decorum as a law officer," she told him after he used only Mamata Banerjee's name without her title.
On the separate ED petition, Trinamool MP Kalyan Banerjee represented the Chief Minister. He pointed out what he called an error in ED's filing. The central agency had listed Mamata Banerjee as 'chief minister' in their case documents. Banerjee argued she should properly be referred to as 'chairperson of Trinamool Congress' in this context.
The virtual hearing showcased the tense legal atmosphere surrounding these politically sensitive cases. Both sides presented strong arguments while the court focused on factual submissions and procedural requirements.
