The Enforcement Directorate has told the Supreme Court that it is difficult to determine whether the material taken by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee when she allegedly obstructed its searches at the premises of political consultancy I-PAC only belonged to the Trinamool Congress, Live Law reported on Thursday.
The central agency made the remarks in a rejoinder affidavit filed in its petition in the Supreme Court against Banerjee and several West Bengal Police officers for allegedly obstructing the searches on January 8.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan has been hearing the petition.
The central agency had conducted searches on January 8 at the political consultancy’s office in Kolkata’s Salt Lake area, the home of its head Pratik Jain and the office of a trader in the city’s Posta neighbourhood as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering.
The Indian Political Action Committee has managed the Trinamool Congress’ election campaigns, including in the 2021 Assembly elections.
Banerjee had arrived at Jain’s home around noon while the search was underway and stayed for about 20 to 25 minutes. She then came out with a green file and claimed that the central agency’s officials were “taking away” party documents ahead of the Assembly elections.
The state is expected to head for elections in March or April.
After the raids, the Trinamool Congress and I-PAC moved the Calcutta High Court, challenging the legality of the searches. The central agency also approached the High Court, alleging “illegal interference” during its search operations.
The Enforcement Directorate’s petition in the Supreme Court was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which grants individuals the right to move the top court for enforcement of their fundamental rights.
In its rejoinder affidavit, the Enforcement Directorate claimed that its petition canvassed the fundamental rights of two categories of persons, Live Law reported.
This included the general public who had the fundamental right to public order and rule of law, and the central agency officers who had the right to personal liberty and to move freely in discharge of their duties.
It added that the respondents’ objection to the maintainability of the Enforcement Directorate’s petition did not survive in view of the Supreme Court’s earlier order on January 15.
During a hearing on January 15, the bench had stayed the first information reports registered by the West Bengal Police against Enforcement Directorate officials in connection with the searches.
Issuing notice to Banerjee and the West Bengal Police officers on the petition filed by the central agency, the Supreme Court had also said that the alleged interference of the state government in the searches was a “serious issue” that needed to be examined.
The Enforcement Directorate has also responded to the justification submitted by the respondents of their interference with the searches on the basis of information that armed persons had entered the premises impersonating as central agency officers.
Claiming that this reasoning was a “camouflage”, the central agency alleged that its officials identified themselves by showing their IDs and search authorisation.
However, the state police intentionally aided and assisted Banerjee in entering the premises where an active statutory search was ongoing, it claimed, adding that the “theft” of incriminating material was committed.
“The manner of entry constituted a clear show of force and numerical strength, during which documents and incriminating material were forcibly taken over and removed from the premises, despite repeated requests by ED officers to refrain from doing so,” Live Law quoted the central agency as saying.
The Enforcement Directorate has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation against Banerjee and the state police officers for carrying away electronic devices and material considered as evidence in the matter, The Hindu reported.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the Enforcement Directorate had told the Supreme Court that it was being “terrorised”, after the West Bengal government argued that the central agency had been “weaponised”.
Just 0.2% of readers pay for news. The others don’t care if it dies. You can help make a difference. Support independent journalism – join Scroll now.
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!