.webp)
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday heard the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition challenging the Trinamool Congress’s objections to search operations conducted at premises linked to political consultancy firm I-PAC in Kolkata. The hearing followed an earlier session on January 9 that had to be deferred due to overcrowding and disruptions in the courtroom.
During the proceedings, the ED placed before the court a detailed account of events during the searches, which were carried out in connection with a coal smuggling probe. The agency claimed its officials were “obstructed from conducting lawful searches and from seizing materials” it considered relevant to the investigation. It further alleged, “The documents and electronic devices were forcibly removed from the premises in the presence of senior state officials, amounting to interference with the probe and obstruction of justice.”
The Trinamool Congress, however, accused the ED of “unlawfully seizing confidential political and electoral data linked to preparations for the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections.” The party, represented by Senior advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, argued, “The material included campaign strategy documents, internal assessments, organisational details and electoral roll-related data, and argued that such information had no connection—direct or indirect—with any scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.” She added that the raids were an intrusion into its internal functioning and termed them “extraordinary bullying,” urging the High Court to ensure protection of its data, as deemed by TMC.
Dr. Guruswamy, appearing for the TMC, maintained that the party was not attempting to pressure the court, unlike the ED. The agency, in turn, questioned why the TMC had not made the Election Commission a party to the proceedings if it was alleging theft of electoral data. ED’s counsel argued that the premises searched were distinct from the TMC office and that the party’s claims were misplaced.
The ED also raised concerns over courtroom conduct, alleging that its microphone was repeatedly switched off during submissions, an act its counsel described as contemptuous. The court responded by cautioning that such allegations related to disruption of court proceedings.
Further escalating its claims, the ED alleged that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee was in “illegal possession of documents removed during the searches”. Appearing for the agency, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju stressed that “no material was seized by the ED,” further claiming that “all records were taken away by Banerjee and others”. He also contended that Banerjee and the state Director General of Police should be made parties to the case.
The ED then questioned the maintainability of the TMC’s petition, pointing out that neither I-PAC nor the occupants of the searched premises were before the court. ASG Raju contended that the affidavit filed by the TMC was unreliable, as the signatory was neither present during the searches nor directly connected to the premises involved. According to the agency, “The petition was vague, speculative and failed to specify what sensitive data had allegedly been seized, particularly when the ED maintained that no seizure had taken place.”
The Calcutta High Court today only examined the issue of maintainability and the limited relief sought—namely, preservation of alleged political data—and not the merits of the allegations.
Meanwhile, the ED sought time to file an affidavit on maintainability, which the court permitted, granting two weeks.
Subsequently, the TMC urged the court to formally record the ED’s statement that no documents or digital evidence had been seized, stating that such a recording would be sufficient to dispose of its plea. However, the ED suggested “withdrawal of the petition.” The TMC clarified it was “not withdrawing but only seeking protection” of its data, if any had been taken.
Following on, ED’s counsel categorically informed the court that no records or electronic material were seized during searches conducted on January 8 at either the I-PAC office or the residence of its director. The court noted the panchanamas prepared by the ED, which corroborated that no seizure was made and that no backup of any data was created by the agency.
In light of these submissions, the High Court recorded that the TMC’s only surviving prayer was for protection of politically confidential data from circulation or disclosure.
As the ED maintained that no seizure had occurred, the court held that nothing further survived in the application and disposed of the TMC’s plea. The ED’s separate petition was adjourned at the agency’s request, with the court noting that related issues are pending before the Supreme Court.
