'You Cannot Dictate': SC Refutes Mamata Govt’s Delay Bid In I-PAC Raid Case, ED Flags ‘Gross Abuse’ of Power

West Bengal: Just ahead of the Assembly elections approaching in the West Bengal, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined a request from the West Bengal government to postpone the hearing in the I-PAC raid case, making it clear that parties cannot control the court’s schedule.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N. V. Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate against the State of West Bengal over alleged interference by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during a raid at the office of Indian Political Action Committee, a political consultancy firm linked to the Trinamool Congress.

At the outset, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the state, sought an adjournment to respond to the ED’s rejoinder affidavit. But the bench refused to defer the matter.

Responding firmly, Justice Mishra said, “Why should we ignore anything? You cannot dictate. We will consider everything which is on record,” and added, “A battle for adjournment is going on.”

ED Opposes Delay, Calls It A Tactic 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, strongly opposed the plea, calling it a deliberate attempt to stall proceedings. He pointed out that the rejoinder had been filed four weeks ago and argued that the state had enough time to prepare its response.

“If you want to delay the matter, let's at least have a decent ground,” Mehta said in court.

Divan, however, argued that the rejoinder was not routine and contained several new averments that went beyond the original scope of the case. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy also supported this, saying there were fresh factual claims that required a proper reply.

Despite this, the bench decided to continue with the hearing. Justice Mishra indicated that the ED could begin arguments and the state could respond later.

Bench Questions State’s Stand, Pushes Hearing Forward

During the exchange, Divan submitted that the state would be at a disadvantage if it had to argue without a written response addressing the ED’s allegations.

“It is a sensitive matter that requires a detailed response,” Divan said.

Justice Mishra, however, replied, “It may be a sensitive matter for you.”

Divan then suggested that if the court chose to ignore the ED’s rejoinder, the state would have no objection. “If the court ignores the rejoinder, then there is no problem but if the rejoinder is going to be looked into…” he said. The bench rejected this line of argument and reiterated that all material on record would be considered.

After it became clear that the court would not grant an adjournment, Divan urged the bench to first hear the state’s preliminary objection on the maintainability of the ED’s petition.

However, Mehta opposed this as well, arguing that the issue could be examined along with the merits of the case.

ED Alleges CM ‘Illegally Barged’ Into Raid Site

The case stems from an ED probe into alleged money laundering linked to I-PAC. The agency has accused Mamata Banerjee of “illegally barged” into the office during the January 8 raid with her Z-plus security and interfering with the operation, even retrieving material from the premises.

The ED has termed the incident a “gross and blatant abuse” of power, turning the case into a major flashpoint between central agencies and the West Bengal government.