Supporters of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan allegedly attacked an Enforcement Directorate team shortly after it conducted searches at his residence here on Wednesday, damaging vehicles and creating a tense situation near Bakery Junction.

The 12-member ED team had arrived to carry out raids linked to a money laundering case involving Vijayan’s daughter T. Veena’s IT firm, Exalogic Solutions, and the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL). The operation, which also covered multiple other locations, triggered protests by CPI(M) workers, who reportedly hurled stones and smashed windows of the vehicles used by the central agency team.

Violent protests erupt near former CM’s house

Local reports and visuals from the spot showed agitated party workers gathering outside Vijayan’s residence as the raids progressed. Police forces were deployed both outside and inside the premises to manage the situation. Despite the unrest, the ED team completed its searches and returned safely to its zonal office, officials said. However, the vehicles sustained significant damage, and authorities indicated that legal action would follow against those involved in the attack.

Vijayan calls raid a political move

Reacting sharply to the development, Pinarayi Vijayan said the ED had been trying to conduct such a raid for a long time. He remarked that the action would “give satisfaction to certain people,” apparently referring to political rivals. The veteran CPI(M) leader alleged that central agencies were being selectively used against opposition parties by the BJP-led Centre.

Vijayan also referred to recent remarks by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and claimed that such actions were part of a larger pattern of “deliberate attacks” on opposition voices. He asserted that these moves would not weaken his party or the larger resistance against the central government. “None of this is going to end us,” Vijayan said, adding that strong support from party workers and local people during the incident reflected the organisational strength of the CPI(M).

Kejriwal accuses misuse of agencies

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal also weighed in, condemning the raid as another instance of central agencies being misused to target opposition leaders. His reaction comes amid a string of similar actions against leaders of non-BJP parties in different states.

Background of the money laundering case

The ED registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in 2024. It stems from allegations that CMRL paid around ₹1.72 crore to Exalogic Solutions during 2018-19, shown as expenses for software and IT services that were allegedly never provided. The total money laundering probe is reportedly linked to transactions worth Rs 182 crore. 

The issue gained fresh traction after the Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by CMRL on Tuesday seeking to cancel the ED investigation. The raids followed within 24 hours.

Political heat rises in Kerala

The development has intensified the already charged political atmosphere in Kerala. The Left Democratic Front (LDF), led by CPI(M), has long accused the Centre of misusing investigative agencies. The ruling front in the state has described the action as politically motivated, especially ahead of key political developments.

Security remained tight around the former Chief Minister’s residence even as the searches concluded. Party supporters maintained a strong presence, projecting it as a show of unity against what they called “vendetta politics.”

What lies ahead

With the ED likely to analyse the material gathered during the raids, further summons or actions cannot be ruled out. The incident also raises questions about the security of central agency teams during sensitive operations in politically sensitive areas.

Opposition parties in Kerala, including the Congress-led UDF, are watching the developments closely. While some have maintained a cautious stand, the episode is expected to dominate political discourse in the coming days.

The case continues to be under investigation by both the ED and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). Legal experts suggest that the outcome could have implications not just for the individuals involved but also for the broader narrative of Centre-state relations and agency autonomy. 

When a Name Change Is Not Enough: Inside the Sehore Dairy Factory Scandal

A factory under active investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. Its director arrested and produced before a special court. Sixty-three forged laboratory certificates uncovered. Foreign exchange fraud worth nearly ₹21 crore. And yet — the production line keeps running, this time under a new name.

This is not a plot from a crime thriller. This is the on-ground reality unfolding at a dairy factory in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, and it raises an urgent question that goes far beyond one company: when institutions look the other way, can simply renaming a business be enough to beat the law?

The Factory, the Brand, and the Fraud

The Enforcement Directorate conducted searches at nine locations across Madhya Pradesh linked to Jayshri Gayatri Food Products Pvt. Ltd. — a private firm accused of producing and distributing adulterated milk products both domestically and internationally, using forged laboratory certificates to pass off substandard goods as certified quality produce.

Better known by its retail brand "Milk Magic," the company initially positioned itself as a business-to-business exporter, dealing in paneer, cheese, butter, curd, flavoured milk, and pure milk. It claimed to export to more than 28 countries including the US, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and New Zealand.

On paper, a thriving export success story. In reality, a carefully constructed facade built on falsified paperwork.

63 Forged Certificates and ₹20.59 Crore in Illicit Foreign Exchange

ED investigation revealed that Jayshri Gayatri Food Products manufactured adulterated milk products and used falsified laboratory certificates — purportedly issued by BIS/NABL recognised labs — to secure export certification from the Export Inspection Agency (EIA) in Indore. Verification showed that these certificates were either originally issued to other companies, outright forged, or fraudulently obtained. During the course of the investigation, 63 such forged lab certificates were identified.

The company exported dairy products using fake laboratory test reports and earned foreign exchange worth ₹20.59 crore through this fraudulent channel. Following arrest, director Kishan Modi was produced before a special PMLA court in Bhopal, which remanded him to ED custody for further questioning.

The scale of deception is staggering. These were not minor clerical errors — this was a systematic, multi-year criminal enterprise that put adulterated food on plates across the Gulf, Southeast Asia, and beyond.

The Rebrand Trick: India's Oldest Corporate Escape Route

What makes the Sehore case especially alarming is what came next. Instead of shutting down during the ED probe, the factory reportedly changed its name and continued operations — producing and supplying as if nothing had happened. This tactic is neither new nor unique to this case. It is a well-worn playbook: dissolve or rename the entity, argue that the new legal name bears no connection to the accused firm, and continue business as usual while courts and agencies play catch-up.

The entire investigation was originally triggered by a complaint from Bhagwan Singh Rajput, a former ABVP member and RTI activist, who approached the Madhya Pradesh Economic Offences Wing alleging large-scale adulteration, forgery of certificates, and the accumulation of properties by the firm's directors in the names of their employees.

That a single whistleblower's persistence triggered this entire investigation is both inspiring and damning — inspiring because civil accountability still works, and damning because it took a citizen activist to force the system into motion.

Who Else Was Affected?

The ripple effects of this fraud reach far beyond Sehore's industrial belt. Reports indicate that Jubilant FoodWorks — the operator of the Domino's India franchise — rejected quintals of frozen paneer supplied by Jayshri Gayatri Food Products on grounds of substandard quality. Similarly, Keventer Agro Limited had rejected a consignment of 25 tonnes of skimmed milk powder due to unacceptably high ash content.

These are not minor quality complaints. These are red flags that, had they been escalated and investigated earlier, might have stopped years of fraudulent exports and domestic distribution.

What This Means for Food Safety in India

The Sehore dairy fraud exposes a dangerous gap at the heart of India's food safety ecosystem. Export Inspection Agencies rely heavily on lab certificates submitted by companies. If those certificates are forged, the entire verification chain collapses. The result: adulterated products labelled as premium quality reach households in India and consumers in over two dozen countries — with no one the wiser.

Renaming a factory does not erase its machinery, its workforce, its supply chain, or its criminal liability under PMLA. The law is clear. What is needed now is equally clear:

• Immediate sealing of premises linked to accused entities under investigation
• Cross-agency coordination between ED, FSSAI, and Export Inspection Agencies
• Mandatory disclosure when a company under investigation changes its legal name
• Faster trial timelines so that arrests translate into genuine accountability

A Name Change Is Not a Clean Slate

Fraud cases of this magnitude rarely exist in a vacuum. They survive because of institutional gaps, delayed enforcement, and the ease with which accused entities can reinvent themselves on paper.

The consumers who bought "Milk Magic" products trusted a brand. That trust was betrayed systematically, over years, across borders. A factory that simply hangs a new nameplate over its gate is not a reformed business. It is the same fraud, wearing a new disguise.

India's food safety and financial crime enforcement must move faster — and smarter — than the criminals they pursue.

Do ED Officers Lose Their Rights on Duty? Supreme Court's Sharp Question Puts Mamata Banerjee in the Dock

In a courtroom exchange that cut to the heart of India's constitutional framework, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked a question that silenced lawyers on both sides: "Do ED officers cease to be citizens of India merely because they work for the Enforcement Directorate?"

The pointed remark from a bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and N.V. Anjaria came during the hearing of a petition filed by the ED against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, over her alleged interference in search operations at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC on January 8, 2026. The case has snowballed into one of the most significant constitutional showdowns of the year — pitting federal law enforcement against state political power.

What Happened at I-PAC on January 8?

The ED was conducting searches at I-PAC's Salt Lake office and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain, as part of a money laundering investigation linked to a ₹2,742 crore coal smuggling scam involving businessman Anup Majee.

What happened next was extraordinary. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee arrived at the premises alongside Trinamool Congress leaders and senior Kolkata Police officers. According to the ED, she removed a laptop, a mobile phone, and several files from the premises. The agency alleged that search operations had to be abruptly ended under coercion, and the panchnama (search memo) recording "peaceful" proceedings was signed under duress.

Banerjee's defence: the material she removed contained confidential Trinamool Congress party data, not evidence related to the probe. Her party denied any obstruction.

The West Bengal Police then filed FIRs against the ED officers themselves — a move the Supreme Court has since stayed.

The Constitutional Question at the Core

Today's hearing zeroed in on a critical legal issue: can the ED file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution — a remedy traditionally available only to citizens whose fundamental rights are violated?

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the West Bengal government, argued that the ED is neither a person nor a citizen, and therefore cannot invoke fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21. Obstruction in performing statutory duty, he argued, does not automatically amount to a fundamental rights violation.

But the bench sharply pushed back. It noted that apart from the agency itself, individual ED officers had also filed petitions in their personal capacity as citizens. The court told Sibal: "Please concentrate on the fundamental rights of the officers of the ED qua whom the offence has been committed. Otherwise you will miss the point."

The message was unmistakable — even if the ED as an institution has limited standing, its officers as individuals retain full constitutional rights.

Why This Case Is Bigger Than Mamata Banerjee

This case is not just about one Chief Minister. It sets a precedent for how far state governments can go in resisting or obstructing central agency investigations.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, argued that this reflects a disturbing pattern — not an isolated incident. He alleged that the Joint Director's residence was gheraoed, frantic calls were made by officers fearing for their safety, and that allowing this behaviour to go unpunished would demoralise central investigative agencies across the country.

The Supreme Court itself had earlier warned that failure to address the issue would create a "situation of lawlessness" across states.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued the constitutional complexity is so significant it should be referred to a larger bench, given the competing questions of federalism, agency rights, and the limits of Article 32.

What Happens Next

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on April 14, 2026, when further arguments will continue. The ED is seeking a CBI probe against Mamata Banerjee and the return of all documents and devices allegedly removed from the I-PAC premises.

For now, the FIRs against ED officers remain stayed by the Supreme Court.

The Bigger Picture

At its core, this case asks a question India has long grappled with: when Centre and state clash, who protects the rule of law?

If a sitting Chief Minister can walk into an active federal investigation, remove evidence, and have her police file cases against the investigating officers — and face no consequence — the message to every state in India is deeply corrosive.

The Supreme Court appears to understand exactly what is at stake. Its sharp, pointed questions today suggest it is in no mood to let this case slip quietly into procedural delay.

The answer to whether ED officers retain their rights on duty may well redefine the boundaries of Indian federalism itself.