Kapil Sibal Defends Mamata Banerjee's Actions in Supreme Court Hearing
Senior counsel Kapil Sibal presented arguments for Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during the I-PAC hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday. He clarified that Banerjee did not visit the I-PAC properties in Kolkata in her official capacity as the chief minister. Instead, she went there as the chairperson of the Trinamool Congress party.
Protecting Party Property from Unauthorized Entry
Sibal explained the reason for her visit. He stated that Banerjee received information about some unauthorized persons entering the premises of Pratik Jain. Jain handles election work for the party. The chairperson possesses the right to protect party property, which prompted her to go to the location.
Sibal then raised critical questions about the Enforcement Directorate's actions. He questioned the sudden urgency of the ED to conduct searches related to the coal smuggling case. This timing coincides with the approach of the 2026 elections. "Why are ED investigations timed just before elections?" Sibal asked the court.
Timing of ED's Investigation Under Scrutiny
He highlighted that the last statement in this particular case was recorded in February 2024. Sibal pointedly asked, "What were they doing since February 2024?" This question underscores the apparent delay in the agency's investigative actions.
Detailing the events of January 8, Sibal noted that no seizure occurred until 12:05 PM. The only items seized were the laptop and phone belonging to Pratik Jain. After this, Mamata Banerjee left the premises. Sibal inquired about the whereabouts of all other devices. He mentioned that she took her personal iPhone and laptop, which contain crucial election-related information.
Contradictions in ED's Claims and Documentation
Sibal further argued that the language used in the ED's panchnama contradicted their other claims. The panchnama stated that the searches were conducted peacefully and without any obstruction. However, in their petition to the court, the ED alleged incidents of "theft, robbery, and dacoity" against Chief Minister Banerjee. Sibal submitted that these two accounts do not align.
Singhvi Raises Issue of Forum Shopping
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the West Bengal government and DGP Rajeev Kumar during the hearing. He addressed the January 8 incident, stating it "could not be the reason to ride two different horses." Singhvi referred to the two petitions filed by the ED on the same issue—one in the Calcutta High Court and another in the Supreme Court.
Singhvi submitted, "I appear for the state of West Bengal and DGP. I also raise the issue of forum shopping where the prayers are the same in HC and SC. Yes, you had an issue on January 9, but that cannot be an excuse to ride two different horses." He acknowledged that emotions can sometimes escalate, understanding the court's perspective on the matter.
Lack of Material Recovery and Prior Notification
It was also noted in the panchnama that no material evidence was recovered during the searches. Singhvi submitted that the local police officials were not informed by the ED before initiating these searches.
Responding to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that local police were informed beforehand, Singhvi countered this claim. He stated, "SG said we were informed. We were only informed by a casual email at 11:30 AM. You (ED) started searching at 6:45 AM." This highlights a significant gap in communication and procedural adherence.
