The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday 14 January brought curtains down on a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC), after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the court that it had not seized any documents or digital devices from the office of election strategist I-PAC or its director Prateek Jain. The party had moved the court seeking protection of what it described as confidential political data.
Justice Suvra Ghosh disposed of the plea after recording the ED’s clear stand that no seizure had taken place during the January 8 search.
Background
The controversy arose from an ED raid at the Kolkata office of I-PAC, which works as the political strategist for the TMC, in connection with an ongoing money laundering probe linked to the coal scam. During the search, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee rushed to the spot, leading to dramatic scenes that later became the subject of legal proceedings.
Following the raid, two parallel cases reached the High Court. The ED alleged obstruction of its investigation, while the TMC claimed that confidential election-related data had been taken away by the central agency and sought directions for its preservation.
Both matters were listed for hearing on Wednesday.
ED’s Stand Before the Court
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for the ED, sought an adjournment in the agency’s petition, stating that a similar plea had already been filed before the Supreme Court.
“We have filed two matters before the Supreme Court wherein we have made the same prayers. Let the matter be adjourned,” he told the court.
Read also:- Retirement Can’t Be Rewritten Using Aadhaar: MP High Court Quashes Anganwadi Reinstatement
However, when it came to the TMC’s plea, Raju made a categorical statement that proved decisive. He informed the bench that the ED had not seized any records, files, or devices from the I-PAC office.
“The panchnama clearly shows that no seizure was effected,” Raju submitted, adding that whatever material was removed from the premises was taken away by Mamata Banerjee herself.
TMC’s Argument on Data Protection
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the TMC, pressed for hearing of the party’s petition. She said the concern was about safeguarding political and personal data, especially in the run-up to elections.
“We want our political data to be safeguarded. The right to privacy has been protected by the Supreme Court,” Guruswamy argued, referring to the landmark Puttaswamy judgment.
Read also:- Can Law Graduates With Pending Criminal Cases Be Enrolled as Advocates? Madras HC Larger Bench to Decide
She also pointed out that the party was not aware of the contents of the ED’s petition before the Supreme Court and therefore sought protection from the High Court.
Later, Guruswamy took a pragmatic stand, requesting the court to record the ED’s submission.
“If Mr Raju says nothing has been seized, that may be recorded, and my petition may be disposed of on those terms,” she said.
Union’s Objections on Maintainability
Opposing the TMC’s plea, counsel for the Union government questioned its maintainability. It was argued that no fundamental right had been shown to be violated and that the petition was based entirely on assumptions.
“If any data was seized, the person from whose premises it was taken should have approached the court,” the Union’s counsel submitted.
ASG Raju went a step further, alleging that the affidavit filed on behalf of the TMC was based on vague and unverified claims.
“False statements have been made on oath. The person who swore the affidavit had no direct knowledge of the raid,” he argued.
He also stressed that since the ED had not seized anything, the prayer seeking preservation of data against the agency could not be granted.
Court Observation
Justice Suvra Ghosh noted the submissions placed on record, particularly the ED’s statement and the panchnama showing no seizure from the I-PAC office or Prateek Jain on January 8.
“In view of such submissions, nothing remains to be dealt with,” the court observed.
The bench also orally cautioned the ASG not to delve into the merits of the ED’s power to seize under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), limiting the scope to the maintainability of the petition.
Decision
Recording the ED’s statement that no documents or data were seized during the raid, the Calcutta High Court disposed of the TMC’s plea seeking protection of confidential political data.
The connected petition filed by the ED, alleging obstruction of its investigation, was adjourned at the agency’s request, as similar proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.
Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: WPA/602/2026
