On 8th January, 2026, the city of Kolkata saw an interesting altercation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the West Bengal Chief Minister, Smt. Mamata Banerjee. This article does not claim to be an exhaustive or even an accurate description of the events that have transpired since. There is much to be revealed (or forgotten, depending on the media narrative) in the days to come. However, this article aims to answer (or just raise) 6 questions that remain unanswered as on the night on 11th January, 2026.
1.
Does the ED need to inform the local
police of a raid prior to commencing the raid?
As per multiple media reports,
the raid at Pratik Jain’s residence started at around 6
AM at Loudon Street. A police sergeant arrived at Jain’s residence at
around 9
AM, but was denied entry. It is also reported that even a DCP
was denied entry. However, it is not reported why the sergeant sought
entry in the first place, or why the DCP did not immediately react.
After trying for 2 hours, the
Kolkata police filed a complaint at 11:20 AM. Shortly afterwards at 11:30 AM,
the ED informed Kolkata police about its presence at Jain’s residence. Interestingly,
this information has vanished from the internet. Readers may still find it on Times
of India, Kolkata edition, dt. 10.01.2026, Page 3, or other similar print
editions. Also, ChatGPT remembers.
Strictly and legally, there is no
statutory requirement of any central agency (ED / IT / CBI / NIA) to inform
the local police before conducting a search / raid. That said, it is customary
for a central agency to inform the local police for coordination or security.
When this does not happen, it may raise to disputes regarding the identity of
the ED officers, or create logistical hurdles, or simply lead to a
confrontation between the two authorities, as it happened in the present case.
This is not the first time the
ED has conducting raids without informing the local police. The agency found
itself amid a similar controversy in 2022 when the then Chief Minister of
Chhattisgarh and member of the Indian National Congress (INC / Congress),
Bhupesh
Baghel, objected to the ED’s raids occurring without informing the local police.
In 2025, Baghel
was raided and his son
was arrested by the ED.
2.
Can the persons who are being raided
leave the premises?
It is common practice for a
raiding agency to restrict the movement of persons while conducting a raid.
This is to prevent removal or destruction of evidence. However, the agency
is not allowed to restrict the movement of persons or even their
departure from the premises as that would amount to illegal detention or
arrest. A raid is conducted on a premises, and persons may be allowed to enter
or exit upon inspection.
In the present case, a
controversy emerged when police
personnel were not allowed to enter the premises during the raid and
when the West
Bengal Chief Minister entered the premises and exited with documents and
digital devices. The ED has already filed a case before the Calcutta
High Court that this act of the Chief Minister amounts to obstruction
of an official investigation. However, the exact allegations and the
defence are not known yet.
3.
Can the ED file a Writ Petition?
As of 11th January,
2026, the ED has filed 2 writ petitions – (1) on 9th January, before
the Calcutta High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Chief
Minister, senior Kolkata Police officials, and the CBI, and (2) on 10th
January, before the Supreme Court under Article 32
of the Constitution against the State of West Bengal, the Chief Minister, and
senior Kolkata Police officials.
The Article 226 petition
alleges an obstruction in an official investigation, removal of evidence, and
seeks a CBI enquiry into the events that transpired during the raid. An Article
226 application is often made against a state actor / government machinery, in
this case the state of West Bengal. The matter could not be heard amidst a
chaotic courtroom on 9th January and has been rescheduled for 14th
January. On this, the ED
is considering requesting the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Delhi
High Court for a more conducive environment for adjudication. This
would also be an insult to the state of West Bengal, who is the primary
respondent in the ED’s petition, during an upcoming election.
The Article 32 petition again
alleges interference and obstruction in an official investigation and seeks
direction on how the investigation should proceed without such obstruction and
the restoration of evidence. An Article 32 petition is often made where there
is an imminent threat to fundamental rights, in this case, the right of an
unobstructed investigation. The ED seeks to have the matter heard before the
Supreme Court on 12th January.
But the pertinent question here
is, can the ED file a writ petition under Article 32 at all? A writ under this
Article is normally filed by a person whose fundamental rights are threatened
by the state. Does the ED, being an agency under the central government, have
fundamental rights? This question was asked by Justice Oka of the Supreme Courtto the ED in April 2025 in a separate writ petition under Article 32. In that
case, the ASG withdrew the petition and followed other legal recourses. So now
that Justice Oka has retired, is the ED trying its luck again or is toying with
another legal strategy by parallel proceedings before the High Court and the
Supreme Court with similar petitions?
Curiously, no public discourse
has yet addressed whether sanction would be required before any criminal
process against ED officers, assuming acts were done in official discharge and
protected under section 218 of the BNSS [197 of the CrPC].
4.
Can ED raids happen for long forlorn
cases?
The present case emanates from the ED ECIR no.
ECIR/17/HIU/2020 dt. 28.11.2020 which in-turn comes from the CBI complaint no. RC0102020A0022
27.11.2020. Since then, the ED has made arrests
and attachments as a part of its investigations, conducted by both the
CBI and the ED.
There is nothing on record that
shows that the ED had any fresh cause of action for conducting raids. However,
it is the nature of investigation that they need to be unpredictable to be
effective. The ED has alleged that I-PAC has been involved in hawala transfers
from illegal coal mining which has been used for campaign expenses.
Legally, under the “continuing
offence” doctrine, the ED has the right to initiate PMLA investigations that
may have occurred anytime in the past, even before the PMLA was enacted. This
has been widely discussed in the case of Nawab
Malik. The ED had alleged that the money laundering in Malik’s case had
happened in 1999, due to which he was arrested in 2022. The case is presently stayed
by the Bombay High Court.
5.
What about the CCTV footage?
CCTV
footage has been collected by the Kolkata police and Bidhannagar police
from Pratik Jain’s residence and I-PAC’s office respectively. The ED has
insisted in court to freeze
the CCTV footage, showing its importance for both sides of the
investigations. As of the date of the article, the footage has already been
forwarded to forensic labs to find the identity of the ED officials in support
of the local police investigation.
It is unclear why
identification of individual ED officers is required at all, when the raid is
admitted and official, unless the intent is to pursue personal criminal
liability rather than institutional accountability.
This also reveals the
difference in the approach of the state and the ED. The state is pursuing FIRs
and police investigations, i.e. asserting territorial criminal jurisdiction. On
the other hand, the ED is filing writs to assert legal supremacy and federal
rights.
6.
Why is Mamata Banerjee blaming Amit Shah?
The Enforcement Directorate
reports to the Ministry of Finance. The political head of that ministry is
Nirmala Sitharaman, who works under the Prime Minister – Narendra Modi.
However, the West
Bengal Chief Minister and other
TMC leaders chose to repeatedly name Amit Shah as the perpetrator of
the ED action. Incidentally, Amit
Shah has been visiting Bengal to organize campaign efforts for the
upcoming assembly elections. So the West Bengal Chief Minister has chosen to
attack a target closer to home and keep the fight regional – on a turf where
she has greater command. Of course if Amit Shah is accused, Modi cannot be
entirely uninvolved. But the Chief Minister has avoided naming Modi and instead chosen a target that is more
likely to stick to the blame and lacks public appeal. This also allows Mamata
Banerjee to keep options open for future parliamentary cooperation with the
BJP. And of course, by not attacking Modi she has avoided being named an
anti-national. This would be useful in future national elections.
