Bengal Government to Challenge ED's I-PAC Raids in Supreme Court
The West Bengal government is preparing to present a strong argument before the Supreme Court. They will state that the Enforcement Directorate violated the very laws it is supposed to enforce during its searches at I-PAC offices in Kolkata and Salt Lake on January 8.
Constitutional Safeguard Against Central Power Misuse
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's presence at both locations as her party's chairperson was completely lawful and essential. It served as a constitutional safeguard against potential misuse of central investigative power. The state government views this as her duty, not defiance.
Though the ED filed petitions on Monday, they did not request urgent hearings. The Bengal government has already filed two caveats in the apex court and will present its case. The Calcutta High Court is also scheduled to hear another batch of petitions from both ED and Trinamool Congress on January 14.
Search Power Used for Intimidation, Not Investigation
A source close to the matter argued that ED's search power was misused. Instead of locating proceeds of crime, it was used to intrude into and intimidate a political organization. The source pointed out that the Supreme Court has previously held such acts as mala fide in law and unconstitutional.
According to highly placed sources, the argument will emphasize that ED's search at I-PAC was not an act of investigation. It was an act of intimidation representing a colourable use of statutory power for collateral political ends. Such conduct violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It also disrupts the federal equilibrium that underpins India's constitutional democracy.
Protecting Sensitive Political Data
A Trinamool senior explained that I-PAC premises function as the digital and analytical command centre for the party. They hold sensitive electoral databases, campaign analytics, and internal party communications. The ED search, executed without demonstrated nexus to any predicate offence, intruded directly into the political machinery of a constitutionally recognized state party.
The party senior further clarified that during this operation, the Chief Minister attended the site to ensure that unrelated political and party members' data materials were not unlawfully accessed or removed. She acted within her constitutional responsibility to safeguard democratic integrity against abuse of federal power.
Professional Organization Serving Multiple Parties
Another source noted that I-PAC is a professional organization with over a decade in political consulting. It provides advisory services to multiple parties across different ideologies and regions. The search operation therefore affected broader political consulting work beyond just one party.
The Supreme Court is likely to be told that the party chairperson's presence both at I-PAC director Pratik Jain's home and office was an act of governance. It ensured that confidential political and party data were protected. The argument will state that the Chief Minister prevented irreparable democratic harm through her intervention.
Preventing Threat to Fair Elections
Rebuffing ED's claims, a senior lawyer aware of the deliberations argued that seizing a party's digital core threatens fair elections and voter privacy. Her intervention prevented unlawful access to data whose misuse could distort electoral fairness.
The senior lawyer added that the chairperson did not prevent the ED from executing lawful searches. She ensured procedural compliance and preservation of unrelated material. That represents due proactive caution, not interference.
A senior officer also argued that successive Supreme Court orders have established an unbroken line of precedent. No state power whether administrative or investigative may be used as a political instrument. The Bengal government's response will emphasize this fundamental constitutional principle.
