The Supreme Court on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, continued hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s plea seeking a CBI investigation into the alleged obstruction of its search operation at the Kolkata office of political consultancy firm I-PAC.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard arguments on both the maintainability of the ED’s petition and the substance of the agency’s allegations.
The ED has alleged that its search was interfered with by then West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and certain State police officials.
Background of the Case
The ED approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions for registration of an FIR and an independent investigation into the alleged obstruction of its search at I-PAC and related premises.
The agency has also sought transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), arguing that an investigation by the State police would not adequately address the allegations involving senior State officials.
The respondents, however, have questioned whether the ED’s petition under Article 32 is maintainable and argued that ordinary criminal-law remedies were available.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench that the ED wanted the Supreme Court itself to decide the issue rather than leave any possible transfer of the matter to the changed political circumstances in West Bengal.
“We are pressing our petition. We want Your Lordships to decide whether we are right or wrong,” Mehta submitted.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the Court had to consider whether a CBI investigation could be directed where allegations concerned a sitting Chief Minister who also exercised control over the State police.
Raju also relied on Supreme Court precedents concerning the power to direct a CBI investigation and submitted that the alleged removal of records during the search warranted investigation into the offences claimed by the ED.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for Banerjee and the other respondents, maintained that the petition should first be examined on maintainability.
She relied on decisions including Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that the criminal procedure framework provides remedies where an FIR is not registered or an investigation is allegedly inadequate.
Guruswamy further submitted that disputed questions of fact should not ordinarily be determined in proceedings under Article 32.
Court’s Observation
The Bench indicated that it did not want the case to be heard in separate stages on maintainability and merits. Justice Mishra told the respondents,
“There won’t be piecemeal hearing.”
The Court also observed that if the petition was found maintainable, the issue of transferring the investigation could be considered.
Guruswamy thereafter continued her submissions on the merits while maintaining her objections to the maintainability of the ED’s plea.
Decision
The Supreme Court did not finally decide the ED’s plea on August 18. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG S.V. Raju concluded their arguments, while Guruswamy’s submissions remained incomplete.
The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 2, 2026
Case Details
- Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 16/2026
- Judge: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Decision/Hearing Date: August 18, 2026
 and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Constables-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
