September 03, 2026 07:36 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Supreme Court slams Bar Council of India over NALSAR row: ‘No power to take action against law students’ | ‘Technical error, not U-turn’: Kerala CM Satheesan denies deleting video slamming cleric’s women remarks after Islamic Scholars’ meet | Bombay HC orders CBI probe into Sushant Singh Rajput's ex-manager Disha Salian's death case | Vijay for PM in 2029? TVK says Rahul Gandhi will ‘hold his hand’ to make him Prime Minister | CJP calls off Sept 5 Delhi march after Supreme Court quashes FIRs against protesters | ‘Dismantle entire terror ecosystem’: Modi’s strong message at SCO Summit in Shehbaz’s presence | Modi’s big appeal after 7.8% GDP growth: ‘Don’t travel abroad, avoid destination weddings’ | Modi-Pezeshkian talks: Iran seeks India’s 'extensive contacts' to end West Asia war | Indus Waters Treaty row: India rejects Hague court order, says ‘no jurisdiction’ over its sovereign decisions | India beats the odds with 7.8% GDP growth; PM Modi has a message for critics
Supreme Court criticises Mamata Banerjee over ED raid interference, flags serious concerns about democracy.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court slams Mamata Banerjee's 'interference' in I-PAC raid case

'CM can't put democracy in peril by interfering with probe': SC slams Mamata Banerjee in I-PAC raid case

| @indiablooms | Apr 22, 2026, at 09:17 pm

New Delhi/IBNS: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised Mamata Banerjee over her intervention during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid at the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain earlier this year.

The court observed that such actions by a sitting chief minister could put democratic processes at risk, stating that no individual, regardless of position, should interfere with an ongoing investigation.

Court questions CM’s actions

A bench comprising Justices P K Mishra and N V Anjaria remarked that it was unprecedented for a chief minister to enter premises during an active enforcement operation.

The court stated that such conduct could adversely affect the functioning of institutions and described the situation as one that would not have been anticipated in the country’s constitutional framework.

During earlier proceedings in March, the court had already termed the incident “not a happy situation”, indicating concern over the nature of the intervention.

ED seeks CBI probe

The hearing forms part of a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into allegations involving Banerjee and her associates.

The bench described the matter as “extraordinary”, noting that it could not ignore the prevailing circumstances in West Bengal while considering the case.

It emphasised that the issue extended beyond a routine legal dispute and required careful assessment of the broader socio-political context.

January raid sparks controversy

The controversy stems from an incident on January 8, when Banerjee entered Pratik Jain's residence during an ED raid linked to alleged money laundering.

The central agency has alleged that documents and electronic devices were removed from the premises during the operation.

Banerjee has denied these allegations, stating that the materials she took were related to her party, the Trinamool Congress, and not connected to the investigation.

She also accused the agency of acting with political motives, while the ED maintained that the raid was part of its probe into a 2020 coal smuggling and money laundering case linked to businessman Anup Majee.

In a related development, I-PAC co-founder Vinesh Chandel was recently arrested by the agency for alleged involvement in the same case.

Political context amid Bengal polls

The court’s observations come as West Bengal heads into assembly elections scheduled in two phases on April 23 and April 29.

The primary contest is between the ruling Trinamool Congress and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.

The timing of the hearing has drawn attention to the intersection of legal proceedings and the broader political climate in the state, as the case continues to unfold.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.