The Calcutta High Court has disposed of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) plea seeking protection of confidential political data following Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids at the I-PAC office and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain. The court’s decision came after the ED stated that it had not seized any material during the searches conducted on 8 January 2026.
Both the ED and TMC had filed petitions in connection with the incident, which is linked to an ongoing money laundering investigation.
According to Live Law, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) representing the ED informed Justice Suvra Ghosh that no files or devices were seized by the agency during the raid.
The ASG further submitted that it was Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who took away the files and devices from the premises, not the ED. The court noted that the panchnama supported the ED’s claim, showing no seizure from either the I-PAC office or its director.
As reported by Deccan Herald, the ED requested adjournment of both its own and the TMC’s petitions, citing that a related matter was pending before the Supreme Court. TMC’s counsel, however, pressed for immediate protection of the party’s data, while the ED reiterated that nothing was seized and that the matter should be deferred until the Supreme Court’s decision.
As highlighted by The Indian Express, the High Court imposed restrictions on courtroom attendance for the hearing, allowing only counsels to be present and live-streaming the proceedings due to previous overcrowding. The ED alleged that its investigation was hindered by Mamata Banerjee and the police, while the TMC claimed the agency had taken confidential documents. Both parties approached the court for relief following the events of 8 January.
As noted in an article by Bar and Bench, Justice Suvra Ghosh recorded the ED’s assurance that nothing was seized and closed the TMC’s plea. The court stated, “Copies of panchnamas drawn up at alleged places of search and seizure demonstrate that nothing was seized from either the office of I-PAC or the Director of I-PAC. In view of the submissions, nothing remains. The application was disposed of.”
“The only prayer is for the preservation of the political confidential data and protection of the same from being circulated to any entity by ED. The other prayers are not pressed. Ld counsel for respondents (ED, Central government) submits nothing whatsoever was seized from the two premises.”
Court records confirmed that no material was seized by the ED, and the TMC’s plea was quashed accordingly. The court relied on the panchnamas and the submissions of the parties to reach its decision.
Arguments presented during the hearing included the ED’s request for adjournment due to the Supreme Court proceedings and the TMC’s insistence on data protection. The ED maintained that the High Court should not proceed while the matter was sub judice before the apex court.
Further updates indicated that the ED’s separate plea alleging interference by Mamata Banerjee was also adjourned at the agency’s request, as a similar petition was pending before the Supreme Court.
“We want our political data to be safeguarded. In Puttaswamy, the right of privacy was protected. We are not before the SC on caveat. We request that our data be protected and not used against us.”
Arguments presented in court also questioned the maintainability of the TMC’s petition, with the ED asserting that the person who filed the plea was not present during the search and could not attest to the facts. The court ultimately found no grounds to continue the matter after the ED’s assurance of non-seizure.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.