Post by : Meena Ariff

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it was deeply disturbed by the disorder and disruption that took place inside the Calcutta High Court during a hearing connected to the ongoing confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate and the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress. The court described the situation as a serious issue and said it would issue notice to examine the matter in detail.

A bench of Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that chaos inside a constitutional court raises grave concerns about the rule of law. The judges made it clear that repeated incidents of disruption cannot be tolerated and must be addressed firmly to protect the dignity of the judicial system.

The matter stems from allegations by the Enforcement Directorate that senior leaders of the Trinamool Congress and officials of the West Bengal government interfered with its investigation. The central agency claims it faced obstruction while conducting searches at the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC, which works closely with the Trinamool Congress during elections.

Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta accused Mamata Banerjee of directly intervening during the search operation. He alleged that she went to the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain and removed material that the agency considered important for its probe. Mehta termed the act as “theft” and warned that such conduct could encourage state police officers to support or protect accused persons in sensitive investigations.

He demanded strong action, including the suspension of West Bengal Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and other senior officers, arguing that allowing such behaviour would weaken the authority of law enforcement agencies across the country.

Mehta also highlighted the events of January 9, when proceedings in the Calcutta High Court were disrupted by a large group of lawyers, many of whom were not connected to the case. According to him, the situation became so chaotic that the judge had no choice but to adjourn the hearing. He described the incident as an example of “mobocracy” and warned that democracy suffers when courtrooms are overtaken by crowds acting under political influence.

The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that lawyers had been mobilised through messages asking them to gather at the court at a specific time, which led to the disruption. He referred to the high court judge’s order, which noted that the environment inside the courtroom was not suitable for a proper hearing due to the commotion created by the crowd.

Reacting to these submissions, the Supreme Court bench asked whether the high court had effectively been turned into a protest site. The judges stressed that such scenes inside a court are unacceptable and undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Following the disruption, the Calcutta High Court restricted access to further hearings and allowed only lawyers directly involved in the case to enter the courtroom. Later, the high court quashed the petition filed by the Trinamool Congress after the Enforcement Directorate informed the court that it had not seized any documents during its searches. However, the Trinamool Congress has maintained that confidential party documents were taken, a claim denied by the central agency.

Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that this was not an isolated incident and urged the court to resolve the issue decisively. He said repeated interference with investigations sends a dangerous message and erodes the independence of central agencies.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the Enforcement Directorate’s actions. He pointed out that the last major development in the coal scam case under investigation took place in February 2024 and asked why the agency conducted searches in 2026, just ahead of the West Bengal Assembly elections.

Sibal explained that I-PAC manages election-related work for the Trinamool Congress under a formal contract and stores sensitive election data, including information about candidates and campaign strategies. He argued that this data is confidential and that any access to it could harm the party’s ability to contest elections fairly. According to him, Mamata Banerjee went to the location to protect this confidential information.

The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that these arguments would not prevent it from issuing notice. The bench observed that if the Enforcement Directorate intended to seize election data, it would have already done so, and since the agency stated that no documents were taken, the matter still required examination.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government and the state police leadership, acknowledged that there was an issue on January 9 but argued that it should not be used as a reason for the Enforcement Directorate to raise the same issue simultaneously before both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court. He said that emotions can sometimes run high in politically sensitive matters.

The bench responded firmly, stating that emotions going out of control repeatedly cannot be justified. The judges stressed that discipline and order inside courtrooms are essential and cannot be compromised under any circumstances.

With the Supreme Court deciding to issue notice, the case is set to undergo closer scrutiny. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for the ongoing dispute between the Enforcement Directorate and the Trinamool Congress, as well as for maintaining order and neutrality within court proceedings across the country.

#Global News #Politics News #World News