Sibal: Didi went to I-PAC office as TMC chairperson, not CM
Times of India | 16 January 2026
Kolkata: At the I-PAC hearing in Supreme Court on Thursday, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, arguing for CM Mamata Banerjee, said she did not go to the place (I-PAC properties in Kolkata) as the chief minister but as chairperson of Trinamool Congress, on information that some unauthorised persons had entered the premises of Pratik Jain, who is taking care of party election work.
"(The) chairperson has the right to protect it and thus went there," Sibal submitted, questioning the sudden urge of ED to search for the coal smuggling case ahead of the 2026 elections.
"Why are ED investigations timed just before elections?" he asked, adding that the last statement in the case was taken in Feb 2024. "What were they doing since Feb 2024?" Sibal asked.
"Till 12.05pm, no seizure took place (on Jan 8). Only the laptop belonging to Jain and Jain's phone were seized, and she left the premises. Where are all the devices? She took the personal iPhone and laptop, which will have the election information," Sibal said.
He added that the language of ED's panchnama and the claims of "theft, robbery and dacoity" made against CM Banerjee were contradicting. While in their panchnama they stated that "the searches were conducted peacefully and without any obstruction", in their petition in court ED claimed otherwise, Sibal submitted.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Bengal govt and DGP Rajeev Kumar, said the Jan 8 incident "could not be the reason to ride 2 different horses". He referred to the two petitions filed by ED on the same issue in Calcutta HC and the apex court.
Singhvi submitted: "I appear for the state of West Bengal and DGP. I also raise the issue of forum shopping where the prayers are the same in HC and SC. Yes, you had an issue on Jan 9, but that cannot be an excuse to ride two different horses. Sometimes emotions go out of hand, and we understand what the court is saying."
It was also pointed out in the panchnama that nothing material was recovered. Singhvi submitted that local police officials were not informed by ED before initiating the searches.
To solicitor general Tushar Mehta's submission that local police were informed before the searches, Singhvi submitted: "SG said we were informed. We were only informed by a casual email at 11.30am. You (ED) started searching at 6.45am."