My presence at search sites was lawful, essential: Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee affidavit in SC rejects ED’s theft charges

KOLKATA/NEW DELHI: CM Mamata Banerjee has filed an affidavit in Supreme Court rubbishing theft charges levelled against her by ED in connection with its searches at the I-PAC office in Salt Lake and the Loudon Street home of the political consultancy’s director, Prateek Jain, on Jan 8.

In the affidavit filed before a hearing of an ED plea by SC on Tuesday, the CM said she only took “sensitive political documents of her party” from the officials involved in the searches, with their permission. The Bengal govt, too, filed an affidavit questioning ED’s charges.




SC adjourned to Feb 10 the hearing on ED’s plea alleging obstruction by Bengal govt, including the CM, to its search of the I-PAC office and Jain’s home in connection with a coal smuggling scam.

An SC bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria deferred the matter after solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for ED, sought time to respond to the affidavits.

The CM stated in her affidavit that her presence at the search sites, as Trinamool Congress chairperson, was “both lawful and essential — a constitutional safeguard against misuse of central investigative power.” She also submitted that ED’s search power was used not to locate proceeds of crime, but to intrude into and intimidate a political organisation, which SC had earlier held was “mala fide in law and unconstitutional”.

According to Banerjee’s submission, the I-PAC premises function as TMC’s digital and analytical command centre and were in possession of the party’s sensitive electoral database, campaign analytics and internal communications. The search intruded directly into the political machinery of a constitutionally recognised state party. The CM, as TMC chairperson, went to the sites while the searches were on to ensure that unrelated political and party members’ data were not unlawfully accessed or removed. This was said to be a “constitutional duty, not defiance,” the affidavit stated.

The top court had on Jan 15 said the CM’s alleged “obstruction” to ED’s probe was “very serious” and agreed to examine if a state’s law-enforcement agencies could interfere with any central agency’s probe into a serious offence. The court made the observation while staying Bengal govt’s FIRs against ED officials who searched the I-PAC premises on Jan 8.

SC also directed the state police to protect CCTV footage of the searches. It issued notices to Banerjee, Bengal govt, then DGP Rajeev Kumar and other senior police officers on ED’s petition seeking a CBI probe against them.

Rebuffing ED’s claims, a senior lawyer aware of the deliberations said, “Seizing a party’s digital core threatens fair elections and voter privacy. Her (Banerjee’s) intervention prevented unlawful access to data, whose misuse could distort electoral fairness. The TMC chairperson did not prevent ED from executing lawful searches; she ensured procedural compliance and preservation of unrelated material. That is due proactive caution, not interference.”

The lawyer stressed that successive SC orders made it clear that there is an “unbroken line” that “no State power — administrative or investigative —may be used as a political instrument.”