Introduction
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has filed a sharp rejoinder before the court accusing authorities in West Bengal of unlawfully obstructing its search operation at the IPAC office. The central agency has sought registration of an FIR against state functionaries, alleging that removal of documents during the raid compromised an ongoing money-laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Keyword: ED IPAC raid West Bengal PMLA
Framing the episode as a serious threat to the rule of law, the ED has argued that interference in a lawful search undermines both statutory authority and the integrity of criminal investigations.
The Standoff at IPAC
The dispute arose during an ED search at the premises of IPAC (Indian Political Action Committee), where state police and officials allegedly intervened while the operation was underway.
The Government of West Bengal had claimed that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee removed certain materials from the premises without objection from ED officers.
In its rejoinder, the ED has categorically denied consenting to any such removal. It stated that once materials were taken away, it became impossible to verify whether only party-related documents were removed or whether materials relevant to the probe were also taken.
ED’s Allegations
In its affidavit, the ED has made the following key assertions:
-
Its officers properly identified themselves and produced valid search authorisations.
-
The State’s claim that intervention was prompted by fears of impersonators was described as a “camouflage.”
-
The presence of senior Kolkata Police personnel allegedly created a coercive atmosphere.
-
Officers were compelled to conclude the search prematurely to prevent escalation.
The agency has further alleged:
“Acts of intimidation, use of force, wrongful confinement of the officer and abuse of state machinery.”
According to the ED, such actions not only obstructed a lawful search but also violated the fundamental rights of its officials.
Constitutional and Legal Issue
The ED has argued that obstruction of a lawful PMLA search infringes the public’s right to rule of law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
Rejecting the State’s contention that the matter falls under Article 131 (which deals with Centre–State disputes to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court), the ED has maintained that:
-
It is seeking investigation into cognisable offences;
-
Registration of an FIR does not require prior hearing of the accused;
-
The issue concerns criminal obstruction rather than a constitutional federal dispute.
The agency has positioned the controversy as one involving criminal law enforcement rather than inter-governmental adjudication.
Broader Implications
The case highlights growing tensions between central investigative agencies and state authorities, raising questions about:
-
Federal balance and cooperative governance;
-
Operational autonomy of investigative bodies;
-
Safeguards during politically sensitive investigations.
The court is now examining the maintainability of the ED’s plea and the scope of relief sought, including whether directions for FIR registration are warranted.
Conclusion
The ED’s rejoinder transforms what began as an operational clash during a search into a larger constitutional and legal confrontation. As the matter remains pending, the court’s ruling could clarify the limits of state intervention in central agency operations and reinforce—or recalibrate—the contours of federal accountability under the PMLA framework.
By KANISHKSOCIALMEDIA For more updates on environmental regulations, public health policies, and developments in India’s governance, follow Kanishk Social Media for comprehensive and timely coverage of critical issues. If you found this article helpful, share it with others interested in India’s environmental efforts and policy innovation
0 Comments