New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the disruption witnessed in the Calcutta High Court during proceedings linked to the standoff between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Mamata Banerjee–led Trinamool Congress, observing that repeated emotional outbursts and chaos cannot be tolerated in judicial spaces.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi said it was “deeply disturbed” by the events of January 9, when court proceedings were derailed due to a large gathering of lawyers not directly connected to the case. The bench said the matter was serious enough to warrant issuing formal notice.
The controversy stems from ED searches conducted at the offices of I-PAC, the political consultancy firm that works with the Trinamool Congress. The central agency has accused West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and senior state officials of interfering with its investigation, including allegedly removing evidence from the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain.
Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that the Chief Minister’s actions amounted to “theft of evidence” and warned that such conduct could encourage state police officials to aid and abet obstruction of central investigations. He sought disciplinary action, including the suspension of West Bengal DGP Rajeev Kumar and other senior officers.
Describing the courtroom disruption as “mobocracy”, Mehta told the bench that lawyers had been mobilised through WhatsApp messages to assemble at a specific time, overwhelming the court. He pointed out that the High Court judge herself recorded that the environment had become unconducive to hearing the matter.
At one point, the Supreme Court bench asked whether the High Court had been turned into “Jantar Mantar”, underscoring its disapproval of the disruption. Following the incident, the Calcutta High Court restricted access to subsequent hearings, allowing only lawyers directly connected with the case.
The High Court later dismissed Trinamool’s petition after the ED stated that it had not seized any documents during the searches. The Trinamool, however, maintains that confidential party material was accessed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the ED’s actions, noting that the last major development in the related coal scam case occurred in February 2024. He argued that I-PAC handles sensitive election-related data for the Trinamool under a formal contract and that the Chief Minister was entitled to protect such confidential material ahead of assembly elections.
The bench responded that issuing notice could not be prevented, pointing out that if the agency had intended to seize election data, it would have done so.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government and the DGP, acknowledged that emotions may have flared during the January 9 incident but argued that it should not justify parallel proceedings in different courts. The bench, however, made it clear that such incidents cannot recur, remarking, “Emotions cannot go out of hand repeatedly.”
The Supreme Court is expected to examine the matter further after issuing notice, as the confrontation between the central agency and the West Bengal government escalates ahead of the state’s election season.
