ED broke law, party chief’s presence was essential: Trinamool to tell SC
Times of India | 13 January 2026
Kolkata: Enforcement Directorate was breaking the very law it is bound to uphold, the Supreme Court is likely to be told in response to ED's petitions on the Jan 8 I-PAC searches in Kolkata and Salt Lake.
CM Mamata Banerjee's presence at both the sites, as her party's chairperson, was "both lawful and essential — a constitutional safeguard against misuse of central investigative power."
Though the ED petitions have been filed on Monday, no mention for "urgent hearings" were made by the agency. The Bengal govt has already filed two caveats in the apex court and will also be heard by the SC. The Calcutta HC is also likely to hear another batch of petitions by ED and Trinamool on Jan 14.
A source argued, "The ED's search power — was used not to locate proceeds of crime but to intrude into and intimidate a political organisation." The source argued the apex court had earlier held that "such an act is mala fide in law and unconstitutional."
According to highly placed sources, the argument will be that the "ED's search at I-PAC was not an act of investigation but an act of intimidation — a colourable use of statutory power for collateral political ends. Such conduct violates Articles 14, 19, 21, and the federal equilibrium that underpins constitutional democracy."
A Trinamool senior argued, "The I-PAC premises function as the digital and analytical command centre for the party, holding sensitive electoral databases, campaign analytics, and internal party communications. The (ED) search, executed without demonstrated nexus to any predicate offence, intruded directly into the political machinery of a constitutionally recognised state party."
The party senior further argued, "During this operation, the CM, as the party's chairperson, attended the site to ensure that unrelated political and party members' data materials were not unlawfully accessed or removed."
Another source said, "I-PAC is a professional organisation with over a decade in political consulting. It provides advisory services to multiple parties across ideologies and regions." Dubbing this to be a "constitutional duty, not defiance," the SC is likely to be told that the party chairperson's presence both at I-PAC director Pratik Jain's home and office "was an act of governance, ensuring that confidential political and party data were protected. She acted within her constitutional responsibility to safeguard democratic integrity against abuse of federal power."
The argument is likely to be that the CM has stopped an irreparable democratic harm. Rebuffing ED's claims, a senior lawyer who is aware of the deliberations, argued, "Seizing a party's digital core threatens fair elections and voter privacy. Her intervention prevented unlawful access to data whose misuse could distort electoral fairness."
"The chairperson did not prevent the ED from executing lawful searches; she ensured procedural compliance and preservation of unrelated material. That is due proactive caution, not interference," the senior lawyer added. A senior officer also argued that successive SC orders have made it clear that there is an "unbroken line" that "no state power—administrative or investigative—may be used as a political instrument."