SC to Bengal: "Lawlessness" if Police Block ED; Stays FIRs

In a decisive intervention today, January 15, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed all FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials, calling the state government’s alleged obstruction of the I-PAC raids a "very serious matter." The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi warned that shielding offenders with state machinery risks creating a "situation of lawlessness."

The court was hearing the ED's urgent plea regarding the January 8 raids at the office of political consultancy firm I-PAC and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain. The agency alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee physically entered the raid site, removed evidence, and that the state police subsequently filed "theft" and "trespass" cases against the central investigators to stall the probe.

The Context (How We Got Here)

• The Trigger: On January 8, ED teams raided I-PAC locations in Kolkata, investigating a money laundering trail linked to the multi-crore "Coal Pilferage Scam."
• The Escalation: The situation spiraled when the CM intervened personally. By January 9, the Kolkata Police had filed FIRs against the ED officers based on complaints from I-PAC staff, effectively freezing the central agency's work.
• The Courtroom Chaos: The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Calcutta High Court was forced to adjourn the hearing on January 14 due to "unmanageable chaos" and mob-like behavior inside the courtroom.

The Reality Check

• The Rumor: "Supreme Court has ordered a CBI probe against Mamata Banerjee today."
• The Fact: False. The Supreme Court has only issued a notice asking the West Bengal government and the CM to respond to the ED's plea for a CBI investigation. No order for a probe has been passed yet; the next hearing is set for February 3, 2026.

The Key Players (Who & So What)

• Justice P.K. Mishra (The Bench): The judicial voice demanding accountability. He emphasized that "larger questions" are at play regarding federalism, stating that if left undecided, it would encourage "lawlessness" where state police are used to block central laws.
• Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General): Representing the ED, he framed the CM's actions as a constitutional breakdown. He alleged that the CM not only took files but that her team "snatched an ED officer's mobile phone," terming the act "nothing but theft."
• Kapil Sibal (Defense Counsel): Representing the State, he argued that the ED’s raid was a pretext to steal confidential "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) voter data to aid the BJP in the upcoming election, justifying the CM's intervention as protecting party property.

The BIGSTORY Reframe (The "SIR" Data Bomb)

While mainstream media frames this as a "Centre vs. State" ego battle, the deeper conflict is about Data Sovereignty.

The files in question reportedly contain the "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) data—a granular analysis of 32 lakh "doubtful" voters in West Bengal.

• The Stakes: If the ED possesses I-PAC's proprietary algorithms and voter profiles, the Trinamool Congress fears the BJP could use this intelligence to manipulate electoral rolls.
• The Reframe: This is not just a corruption investigation; it is a battle for the digital keys to the 2026 election. The "lawlessness" is a symptom; the disease is the weaponization of voter data.

The Implications (Why This Matters)

The Supreme Court's use of the term "Lawlessness" is legally explosive.

• Article 356 Trigger: By formally observing that the state machinery might be obstructing a central agency, the Court has inadvertently laid the judicial groundwork for the Centre to invoke Article 356 (President's Rule) citing a "breakdown of constitutional machinery."
• The Precedent: If the stay on FIRs holds, it sets a permanent precedent: State Police cannot investigate Central Agencies for "procedural excesses" during a raid. This grants ED/CBI officers effectively total immunity from local law enforcement, shifting the balance of power decisively to New Delhi.

Your Move

• For West Bengal Voters: Ignore panic rumors circulating on WhatsApp about immediate "voter list deletions." The "SIR" data is under legal dispute, but the official electoral roll is managed by the Election Commission of India (ECI), not I-PAC. Check your status only on the official CEO West Bengal website.

The Closing Question (Now, Think About This)

If a state's only defense against a federal probe is to arrest the investigators, have we crossed the line from cooperative federalism into open administrative warfare?

FAQs

1. What did the Supreme Court order in the ED vs West Bengal case on Jan 15, 2026? The Supreme Court stayed all FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials regarding the I-PAC raid. It also ordered the immediate preservation of CCTV footage from the raid sites and issued notices to the Chief Minister and State Government regarding the ED's plea for a CBI probe.

2. Why did Mamata Banerjee interfere in the I-PAC raid? The West Bengal CM claimed the ED was illegally seizing sensitive "SIR" (Special Intensive Revision) voter verification data. She argued this data was confidential party property and that the raid was a political attempt to help the BJP manipulate electoral rolls ahead of the 2026 elections.

3. What is the SIR data controversy? "SIR" refers to a massive door-to-door survey conducted by I-PAC to identify "doubtful" voters. The ED suspects this data links to money laundering, while the TMC claims it is legitimate political strategy. The dispute is over who owns this data and whether it can be seized as "evidence."

4. What is the link between I-PAC and the Coal Scam? The ED alleges that funds from the illegal coal mining syndicate in West Bengal (approx. ₹1,352 crore) were laundered through hawala channels to pay for I-PAC's political consultancy services, specifically funding operations for the Trinamool Congress's campaign in the 2022 Goa elections.

5. Can the Supreme Court order a CBI probe against a Chief Minister? Yes, legally the Supreme Court can order a CBI probe against any public servant if there is prima facie evidence of cognizable offences or abuse of power. However, in this specific case, the Court has currently only issued a notice asking for a response; a final decision on the probe will be made after the next hearing on February 3.

Sources

News Coverage

• LiveLaw: Supreme Court stays WB FIRs against ED officers, issues notice to Mamata Banerjee
• The Hindu: ‘Situation of lawlessness’: SC pulls up Bengal govt over police action against ED
• ANI: ED claims Mamata Banerjee snatched officer's phone, SC issues notice

Context & Analysis

• Bar and Bench: Detailed court order and observations by Justice Mishra