New Delhi [India], February 19 : In response to the West Bengal Government's aspersion that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been "weaponised", the central agency on Wednesday clarified before the Supreme Court of India that it is being "terrorised" by the State government, not weaponised.
The counter-cum-clarification came from Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju to Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra's opening arguments on behalf of the State in the pleas filed by the ED alleging obstruction by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other officials during a search operation at the Kolkata office of I-PAC, a political consultancy firm linked to the All India Trinamool Congress.
"Agency has been weaponised. They will have to justify how an agency can be weaponised," Luthra submitted.
"No, no, agency isn't weaponised. It's terrorised," the ASG countered.
The brief row between the parties marked the start of submissions, with the two parties pressing their respective stands before the Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Vishwanathan. The Court assured the counsels that it would hear all of them and, after deliberating over several dates, adjourned the matter to March 18.
Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the ED, submitted that the agency's rejoinder affidavit would be filed during the course of the day.
"The rejoinder will be filed during the course of the day. I will also address the Court on important constitutional principles. Kindly have it on some other day," Mehta said.
Referring to objections likely to be raised on maintainability, Mehta added, "Kapil Sibal, Dr Singhvi with their limited understanding, will try to persuade Your Lordships on 32," indicating that the respondents would challenge the maintainability of the ED's pleas under Article 32 (apex courts' writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra responded, "I think my learned friend is a little harsh in saying limited understanding of the counsels."
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi added that the Court had, in the earlier hearing, noted that it would hear the matter on the maintainability of the case.
"Your lordships recorded my submission in your order saying maintainability will be fully open", Singhvi said.
"We will hear all of you", Justice Mishra said, giving assurance to all parties that their arguments would be fully heard by the Court.
Noting the ED's submission that it would file its rejoinder affidavit in response to the reply filed by the Chief Minister and the State government, the Court posted the matter for further hearing on March 18.
The Court had earlier issued notice to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other senior officials of the State administration, including police officers, seeking their response to the ED's plea. The Court had also stayed the FIR registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials who had entered the I-PAC office to conduct the search. The State government was also directed to preserve CCTV footage from I-PAC and from cameras in the surrounding areas.
The apex court has earlier also rejected the State's objection that the dispute ought to be heard by the Calcutta High Court. The Bench observed that the case involved larger constitutional questions that warranted examination by the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, CM Mamata Banerjee and the WB government, in their response, have challenged the maintainability of the ED's petition filed under Article 32, arguing that the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of fundamental rights and does not extend to alleged statutory violations or disputes involving contested facts.
The WB CM has contended that the ED failed to avail alternate remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). According to her response, the agency did not invoke the procedure under Section 66(2) of the Act, did not seek registration of an FIR in West Bengal, and did not approach the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The CM Banerjee has further accused the ED of forum shopping, stating that it had filed an identical petition before the Calcutta High Court on January 9, 2026, prior to moving the Supreme Court on January 12.