Today, the Supreme Court said it was “deeply disturbed” by the disorder that broke out in the Calcutta High Court during a hearing linked to the ongoing confrontation between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC).

Calling it a serious matter, the court said it would issue notice in the case.

The ED has accused Mamata Banerjee and officials of the West Bengal government of interfering with its investigation, particularly during searches conducted at the offices of political consultancy firm I-PAC, which works with the TMC.

Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta alleged that Banerjee removed evidence from the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain. He warned that such actions could encourage state police officers to support interference in central investigations and demanded the suspension of West Bengal’s Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar and other senior officers.

Describing the events in the Calcutta High Court on January 9, Mehta termed the situation “mobocracy”. He said several lawyers, who were not connected to the case, entered the courtroom and disrupted the proceedings, forcing the judge to adjourn the hearing.

A bench of Justices Prashant Mishra and Vipul Pancholi questioned whether the high court had turned into “Jantar Mantar”. Mehta told the court that lawyers were mobilised through WhatsApp messages to gather at a specific time. He referred to the high court’s order, which recorded that the large crowd of lawyers created a chaotic atmosphere that was not suitable for a proper hearing.

Following the disruption, the Calcutta High Court restricted entry to only those lawyers who were directly involved in the case. The high court later dismissed TMC’s petition after the ED stated that it had not seized any documents during its searches. However, the TMC has claimed that the agency took confidential party documents.

Mehta told the Supreme Court that this was not the first time Mamata Banerjee had acted in this manner and urged the court to resolve the issue conclusively.

Representing Banerjee, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned why the ED conducted searches in West Bengal ahead of Assembly elections. He said there had been no major development in the coal scam case since February 2024 and argued that I-PAC handles election strategy for the TMC under a formal agreement.

Sibal said the offices contained sensitive and confidential election data, including information on candidates. He argued that Banerjee was entitled to protect this data, which is why she went to the premises during the search.

The bench, however, told Sibal that it would still issue notice in the matter. It observed that if the ED had intended to seize election data, it would have done so, which it did not. Sibal responded that he was only attempting to persuade the court.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the West Bengal government and the DGP, pointed out that the ED had raised the issue both before the Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court. Referring to the January 9 incident, he said emotions sometimes run high, but that could not justify pursuing parallel proceedings.

The bench responded firmly, stating that emotions cannot repeatedly spiral out of control