Enforcement Directorate Accuses Mamata Banerjee of Obstructing I-PAC Raid; Seeks CBI Probe

According to the agency, officers conducting searches under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were obstructed by senior state police officials who allegedly acted in concert with the state leadership. The ED has requested a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation, arguing that an independent inquiry is necessary given the seriousness of the allegations and its stated lack of confidence in local proceedings. The Supreme Court, which termed the alleged obstruction a “very serious issue,” has scheduled the next hearing for March 18.

In its affidavit, the ED claimed that during the operation Banerjee arrived at the location accompanied by police officers, after which evidence already collected was seized and data-backup processes were halted. Investigators further alleged that electronic devices, including a laptop and mobile phones belonging to ED personnel, were taken by state police for about two hours, an act the agency equated with unlawful seizure. The agency also contended that the presence of a large police contingent created an atmosphere of coercion that impeded lawful investigative work.

The West Bengal government has rejected the accusations, stating that state authorities intervened because armed individuals were allegedly conducting searches without proper verification. Officials said police acted to ensure legal compliance and public safety. The ED countered that its officers displayed identification and valid search warrants during the operation.

The case stems from a coal-related money-laundering investigation first registered by the CBI in November 2020. Enforcement officials allege that about ₹20 crore linked to the scheme was routed to I-PAC through hawala channels. The consultancy firm, known for managing election campaigns for political parties, denies wrongdoing. The ruling All India Trinamool Congress has also dismissed claims that it obstructed investigators, asserting that the raid was timed to access confidential campaign strategy ahead of upcoming assembly elections.

Legal observers say the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could clarify the limits of state authority during central agency searches and set precedent for jurisdictional disputes. With both sides standing by their claims, the case is poised to become a closely watched test of federal investigative powers and state autonomy.