ED vs Bengal: Supreme Court Tussle Heats Up Over Controversial Raids
Image Source: Internet
In a high-stakes battle, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal government have taken their dispute over the ED's raids on I-PAC to the Supreme Court. The ED has accused the state machinery, led by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, of obstructing its investigation into alleged money laundering linked to the political consultancy firm. The agency claims that Banerjee and senior officials forcibly removed key documents and electronic devices from the raid sites, compromising the integrity of the probe. The ED has sought directions for a CBI probe or an independent investigation into the alleged interference. In response, the West Bengal government filed a caveat in the Supreme Court, requesting a hearing before any interim relief is granted. The ED's petition details a sequence of events, describing the raids as a 'showdown' triggered by the West Bengal government's actions. The agency claims that local police officials made it impossible for them to conduct searches independently and fairly. The dispute arises from ED searches conducted at 10 premises linked to alleged coal smuggling kingpin Anup Majee, as part of a money laundering probe. The ED claims that proceeds of crime worth nearly ₹10 crore were allegedly routed to I-PAC through hawala channels. The Trinamool Congress and I-PAC have filed counter-petitions in the Calcutta High Court, contesting ED's allegations. The party maintains that the seized material relates exclusively to election planning and campaign strategy, arguing that such documents fall outside the scope of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The confrontation has spilled onto the streets, with Banerjee leading a massive protest march in south Kolkata. Accusing the BJP-led Centre of misusing central agencies, Banerjee claimed she intervened only to protect her party's confidential documents. The ED is expected to urgently mention the matter before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday, contending that immediate judicial intervention is necessary to prevent destruction or tampering of evidence.
