August 13, 2026 10:34 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Netaji row: Suvendu Adhikari govt strips BJP MP Anant Maharaj of state honour | Sukhbir Badal attacked by Nihang Sikh with kirpan at Maharashtra gurdwara; assailant detained | ‘If you cannot do it, we will pass an order’: Supreme Court’s final warning to Centre on food labels | ‘Time to move on’: Bombay HC sends strong message in Vijay Mallya-bank dispute | Netaji row explodes in Bengal: Suvendu Adhikari orders police action over ‘derogatory’ posts | Kolkata's NRS Hospital nurse found dead in washroom during night shift | RG Kar rape-murder case takes fresh turn as ex-TMC MLA Nirmal Ghosh arrested over cremation probe | ‘Govt has nothing to hide’: Amit Shah says ‘ready for debate’ on NEET crackdown; Rahul Gandhi hits back, ‘not interested in lecture’ | Tata Sons leadership shock: N Chandrasekaran won’t seek reappointment as chairman after February 2027 | ISI-linked Pakistani national arrested in Bengal over 'espionage' targeting Army, BSF, Railways
Supreme Court criticises Mamata Banerjee over ED raid interference, flags serious concerns about democracy.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court slams Mamata Banerjee's 'interference' in I-PAC raid case

'CM can't put democracy in peril by interfering with probe': SC slams Mamata Banerjee in I-PAC raid case

| @indiablooms | Apr 22, 2026, at 09:17 pm

New Delhi/IBNS: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised Mamata Banerjee over her intervention during an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid at the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain earlier this year.

The court observed that such actions by a sitting chief minister could put democratic processes at risk, stating that no individual, regardless of position, should interfere with an ongoing investigation.

Court questions CM’s actions

A bench comprising Justices P K Mishra and N V Anjaria remarked that it was unprecedented for a chief minister to enter premises during an active enforcement operation.

The court stated that such conduct could adversely affect the functioning of institutions and described the situation as one that would not have been anticipated in the country’s constitutional framework.

During earlier proceedings in March, the court had already termed the incident “not a happy situation”, indicating concern over the nature of the intervention.

ED seeks CBI probe

The hearing forms part of a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which has sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into allegations involving Banerjee and her associates.

The bench described the matter as “extraordinary”, noting that it could not ignore the prevailing circumstances in West Bengal while considering the case.

It emphasised that the issue extended beyond a routine legal dispute and required careful assessment of the broader socio-political context.

January raid sparks controversy

The controversy stems from an incident on January 8, when Banerjee entered Pratik Jain's residence during an ED raid linked to alleged money laundering.

The central agency has alleged that documents and electronic devices were removed from the premises during the operation.

Banerjee has denied these allegations, stating that the materials she took were related to her party, the Trinamool Congress, and not connected to the investigation.

She also accused the agency of acting with political motives, while the ED maintained that the raid was part of its probe into a 2020 coal smuggling and money laundering case linked to businessman Anup Majee.

In a related development, I-PAC co-founder Vinesh Chandel was recently arrested by the agency for alleged involvement in the same case.

Political context amid Bengal polls

The court’s observations come as West Bengal heads into assembly elections scheduled in two phases on April 23 and April 29.

The primary contest is between the ruling Trinamool Congress and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.

The timing of the hearing has drawn attention to the intersection of legal proceedings and the broader political climate in the state, as the case continues to unfold.

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.