Naw Notify, January 15, 2026 : The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the FIRs lodged by the West Bengal Police against officials of the Enforcement Directorate in connection with recent search operations at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain.
The apex court noted that the petitions raise serious concerns about alleged interference by state agencies in a central investigation. A Bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi issued notices to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar, the Kolkata Police Commissioner, and other officials in response to the ED’s pleas. The Court granted two weeks to the respondents to file their counter-affidavits and listed the matter for further hearing on the 3rd of next month.
In its interim order, the Supreme Court of India directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other electronic storage devices containing recordings from the searched premises and nearby areas until the next hearing. Emphasising adherence to the rule of law, the Court observed that leaving such issues unresolved could result in a situation of lawlessness.
Seeking urgent relief, the Enforcement Directorate alleged that its officials faced resistance and were prevented from performing their statutory duties during simultaneous searches at I-PAC’s office and Pratik Jain’s residence last week. The agency further claimed that actions by West Bengal authorities compromised the integrity of its investigation.
In a separate application, the ED also sought action against senior West Bengal Police officials, including the DGP, alleging that they acted in concert with the Chief Minister to obstruct the probe and enable the removal of evidence. The Supreme Court agreed to examine the broader question of whether a state’s law-enforcement agencies can interfere with investigations being conducted by a central agency into serious offences.
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that there has been a repeated pattern of interference whenever statutory authorities exercise their powers, calling the situation “very shocking.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, opposing the submissions, rejected the allegations and stated that claims regarding the seizure of all digital devices were untrue.
