SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, JJ.
Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 16 of 2026 With Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 17 of 2026
Decided On : 15-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of petitioners and case background. (Para 1) |
| 2. claims of interference during the investigation. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. interference by officials during a search. (Para 3) |
| 4. legal requirements for firs and investigation integrity. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. arguments against maintainability and interference claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. acknowledgment of affected proceedings. (Para 15) |
| 7. court's recognition of serious issues and implications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. orders issued by the court. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER
1. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 16/2026, the petitioners are the Directorate of Enforcement and its Deputy Directors, whereas in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 17/2026, the petitioners are the officers of Enforcement Directorate, who had gone to the subject premises during the course of investigation, conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement.
2. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the petitioners, would draw our attention to a series of events which has led to filing of the present Writ Petitions. According to him, the Directorate of Enforcement was investigating a scam amounting to Rs.2742.32 crores, since the year 2020 and during the course of investigation of the said scam, intelligence was received that about Rs.20 crores of the proceeds of crime from Kolkata to Goa was transferred through R Kanti Lal firm and has eventually channeled into IPAC’s operational framework by being handed over to persons executing its work.
3. Armed with authorization to carry out search and seizure proceedings at the residential premises of Mr. Pratik Jain of IPAC, the officers visited his premises, amongst other premises, on 08.01.2026; and when the search was going on, Shri Priyobrato, IPS, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Shri Manoj Kumar Verma, IPS, Commissioner of police, Kolkata entered the premises and thereafter, the second respondent in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 17/2026, the sitting Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State of West Bengal, Smt. Mamata Banerjee also entered the premises despite making categorical request for not interfering with the ongoing search proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
4. He would submit that this is not a singular incident where Hon’ble Chief Minister has entered the premises under investigation, as on an earlier occasion when the Central Bureau of Investigation was investigating an offence, a similar event has happened. Therefore, there is a pattern of interference with the investigation carried out by the Central Agencies.
5. According to him, the materials collected by the investigation team of Directorate of Enforcement were taken away by the respondents in an illegal manner and thereafter, the West Bengal Police has registered several FIRs against the officers of the Enforcement Directorate.
6. Learned Solicitor General would next submit that in a situation like this, it is difficult for the Central Agencies to carry on the investigations which has connection with a huge scam to the tune of Rs.2742.32 crores. Learned Solicitor General would submit that, true it is, the petitioner Directorate of Enforcement has preferred a Writ Petition before the Kolkata High Court, but when the matter was to be taken up for hearing on 09.01.2026, the legal cell of the Trinmool Congress sent a message to its members on whatsapp, calling them to assemble in the Court; and thereafter, what has happened in the Court has been recorded by the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court in its proceedings dated 12.01.2026, which is reproduced hereunder:
Interference by state agencies in central investigations undermines the rule of law, necessitating judicial intervention and proper registration of FIRs for cognizable offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a fair and effective investigation, leading to the direction of a Special Investigation Team consisting of personnel from both the CBI....
Court held that state police investigation indicated bias; thus, CBI should investigate to ensure impartiality in serious allegations involving high-profile figures.
Point of Law : Provisions of section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Officers of Delhi Special Police Establishment, a premier investigating agency, are and must be fully alive to....
Conduct and bona-fides of the Petitioner are not to be construed as an indictment of the State of Maharashtra in general but they are in context as a party in this litigation and as an adjudication o....
The jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate to investigate alleged money laundering in respect of offences under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was the main l....
(1) Delhi liquor scam – Arrest of petitioner Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of State of Delhi is not illegal.(2) Law of approver is more than 100 years old – It is Court of law that evaluates credib....
High Court cannot assume such powers to itself without considering chain of administrative control in hierarchy of service.
(1) There is a statutory right of police to investigate cognizable crime without requiring any authority from judicial authority – Functions of judiciary and police are complementary, not overlapping....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.