Where is the authority? Didn't seize any documents during I-PAC searches, says ED; Calcutta HC disposes of TMC plea

KOLKATA: Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday told Calcutta High Court that its officials did not seize anything during the Jan 8 searches on political consultancy firm I-PAC's Salt Lake office and the residence of its director Pratik Jain and no data backup was taken.

ED's submission prompted the HC to dispose of Trinamool Congress's plea that "political confidential data" seized during those searches be preserved and stopped from being leaked. In her two-page order, Justice Suvra Ghosh also noted that ED's panchanama (seizure lists) corroborates its submission.


The ED counsel also pleaded that the HC adjourn hearing on its petition filed on Jan 9 seeking a CBI probe against CM Mamata Banerjee and state police officers because the Supreme Court was hearing the same issue. Justice Ghosh acquiesced to this request and adjourned the case for a fortnight.


The 82-minute hearing, which was live-streamed with only those pleading the case allowed in the courtroom, witnessed heated exchange between counsel for the two parties. At one point, additional solicitor general SV Raju, who was representing ED, said, "The prayer is for protection of data. The record was seized by Mamata Banerjee. Unless she is made a party, these prayers can't be granted, as no record has been seized by ED, but all records have been seized by Mamata Banerjee and her cohorts." This prompted Trinamool counsel Menaka Guruswamy to say, "Let his statement be recorded that nothing was seized." Both Raju and Guruswamy joined the hearing virtually.

ED, from the very beginning, pressed for an adjournment. ASG Raju argued that Trinamool's petition should not be heard since it was not one of the 'caveators' in the SC. Guruswamy retorted, "We only request that our political data be protected and not released in media and not used in political fashion." She added, "Unlike Mr Raju, I don't bully courts."

ASG Raju kept interjecting that the matter was pending before the SC. When Justice Ghosh requested ASG Raju to not intervene, he stated: "I am representing the Union of India. I am an additional solicitor general. I have not completed it (argument). Sorry state of affairs."

Advocate Kumarjyoti Tewari, representing the Union of India, questioned the maintainability of Trinamool petition, arguing that ED had conducted raids at locations that were not addresses of Trinamool and, in its petition, stress was on SIR but the EC had not been made a party.

Raju, supplementing these arguments, questioned why Subhasish Chakraborty (former Trinamool Rajya Sabha MP) had been made the signatory in the petition, stating that he was a third person who had no knowledge of the search. "The petition is filed by a stranger...Where is the authority?" he argued.

Guruswamy replied, "It is inappropriate to bully a political party when it believes that its data was housed by the political strategist. It is a well-founded fear we had and that is why we came to court. The authorization letter was given by a national working committee member (of the party). The person who signed the affidavit is a member of the party. We find that it is suspect our political strategist's office was targeted before the elections...If Mr Raju says nothing had been seized that may be recorded and my petition may be disposed of on those terms that nothing was seized."

Amidst the jabs by both counsels, Guruswamy questioned how Raju could refer to a CM by only her name. "Have some decorum as a law officer," she told the ASG.

On ED's petition, CM's counsel, party MP Kalyan Banerjee, pointed out that the central agency had wrongly tagged Mamata Banerjee as 'chief minister' in the case and she should be referred to as 'chairperson of Trinamool Congress'.