I-PAC Raid
'Mobocracy in court?': SC explodes over Calcutta HC chaos in ED vs Mamata showdown
New Delhi/IBNS: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was “very much disturbed” by the chaos that erupted in the Calcutta High Court during the hearing on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) petition against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee over the I-PAC raid row, media reports said.
Describing the incident as a “serious issue,” the apex court took note of the disruption that prompted the ED to move a similar petition before it.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, termed the situation inside the High Court “a mobocracy.”
During Wednesday’s hearing at the Calcutta High Court, Justice Suvra Ghosh adjourned the matter, stating, “On the ground that ED has filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, the matter is adjourned. Liberty to mention after the Supreme Court matter is disposed of.”
Mehta further accused Banerjee of “theft,” alleging that the Chief Minister had entered the residence of I-PAC head Pratik Jain and taken away a green file, a laptop and a mobile phone.
He claimed Banerjee removed evidence from Jain’s residence, which was one of six locations in West Bengal raided by the ED in connection with the alleged coal scam on January 8.
The Solicitor General demanded the suspension of West Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and other state police officers who had accompanied the Chief Minister to Jain’s residence.
“This kind of act will encourage state police officers to aid and abet such cases,” Mehta told the court, as quoted by NDTV.
Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government and state police, argued that Banerjee is a Z-category protectee and is accompanied by police personnel wherever she goes.
“Whether she is a Chief Minister or president of a party, she is a Z-class protectee,” Singhvi said, as quoted by India Today.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Banerjee, alleged that the ED conducted the raid at the I-PAC office despite knowing it contained confidential party documents.
Questioning the timing of the action in a poll-bound state, Sibal said, “They knew there was election material there, which is why they went there. They knew that office has confidential election material under a contract. This is a complete malafide act on the part of the ED.”
In response, Mehta argued that the elections are yet to be notified.
The court is scheduled to resume hearing after lunch.
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.
