Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Calcutta High Court Disruption

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressed serious concerns regarding the recent turmoil within the Calcutta High Court during a hearing linked to the ongoing disputes between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC). The justices called the disarray a pressing issue and indicated that they would be issuing a notice to delve deeper into the situation.

A panel comprising Justice Prashant Mishra and Justice Vipul Pancholi remarked that chaos in a constitutional court poses severe risks to the rule of law. They asserted that continuous disruptions are intolerable and must be addressed decisively to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

The events in question arise from allegations made by the Enforcement Directorate, which accuses TMC leaders and officials of the West Bengal government of obstructing its investigations. The central agency claims to have faced barriers while performing searches at the I-PAC political consultancy that collaborates closely with the TMC during elections.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, alleged that Mamata Banerjee actively intervened during a search operation. He asserted that she visited the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain and removed materials deemed crucial for the ED's investigation. Mehta described this act as “theft” and cautioned that such actions could embolden state police to shield individuals involved in sensitive investigations.

He called for significant measures, including the suspension of West Bengal's Director General of Police, Rajeev Kumar, and other senior officials, arguing that condoning such behavior undermines the authority of law enforcement across the country.

Mehta also recounted the incident on January 9, when proceedings in the Calcutta High Court were significantly disrupted by a large contingent of lawyers, many of whom had no connection to the case. He depicted the situation as so disruptive that the presiding judge was compelled to adjourn the proceedings. According to Mehta, this scenario exemplifies the dangers of “mobocracy,” warning that democracy is at risk when courtrooms are overtly influenced by political crowds.

The Solicitor General informed the Supreme Court that messages had been circulated to mobilize lawyers, prompting them to assemble at the court at a designated time, leading to the chaos. He cited the high court judge's order that remarked the courtroom's atmosphere was unfit for a proper hearing due to the disturbances caused by the crowd.

In response to these claims, the Supreme Court bench inquired if the high court had effectively transformed into a site of protest. The justices emphasized the unacceptability of such situations within a court, asserting that it undermines public trust in the judicial system.

Following the disturbances, the Calcutta High Court imposed restrictions on access to subsequent hearings, permitting only attorneys involved in the case to enter the courtroom. Subsequently, the high court dismissed a petition from the TMC after the ED had confirmed that no documents were seized during the searches. Nonetheless, the TMC insists that confidential party documents were collected, a claim the central agency refutes.

Mehta informed the Supreme Court that this incident reveals a pattern, advocating for decisive action from the court. He warned that repeated interference in investigations sends a perilous message and jeopardizes the autonomy of central agencies.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Mamata Banerjee, questioned the timing of the ED's actions. He highlighted that the previous significant advancement in the coal scam case under investigation occurred in February 2024 and questioned why the ED initiated searches in 2026, right before the West Bengal Assembly elections.

Sibal elaborated that I-PAC oversees electoral operations for the TMC through a formal contract and houses sensitive election information, including candidate details and campaign tactics. He contended that this data is confidential and any breaches could impede the party's capacity to contest elections fairly, arguing that Banerjee's visit aimed to safeguard this sensitive information.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that these arguments would not avert the issuance of notice. The bench observed that if the ED had plans to seize election-related data, this would have been executed by now, and since no documents were taken, the case warrants further investigation.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the West Bengal government and state police, acknowledged that the January 9 incident posed a problem but contended that it should not be a basis for the ED to simultaneously address the same concern in both the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court. He indicated that emotions can escalate in politically charged matters.

The bench answered firmly, stating that ongoing emotional disruptions cannot be justified. The justices emphasized the necessity of discipline and order in courtrooms as non-negotiable principles.

With the Supreme Court opting to issue notice, the case will undergo more stringent examination, with outcomes expected to significantly affect the ongoing tension between the ED and TMC, in addition to reinforcing order and impartiality within court proceedings nationwide.