NPN

New Delhi: A heated debate took place in the Supreme Court on Thursday regarding the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition concerning the raid on IPAC in West Bengal. The ED claims that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the state police obstructed the investigation during the raid on IPAC. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that this was a very shocking incident. The Chief Minister herself reached the raid site and obstructed the investigation. The state police acted in a politically motivated manner. Mehta further stated that the ED was acting under Section 17 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), but the investigation was deliberately hampered. After the arguments, the court issued notices to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the state's DGP, and the Commissioner, seeking their replies within two weeks. 'If such incidents are tolerated...' Mehta emphasized that if such incidents are tolerated, it will encourage such acts and demoralize the central forces. The state government should not get the message that they can forcibly enter, steal, and then stage a protest. A precedent must be set, and the officers who were present at the scene should be suspended. Justice Mishra asked whether they should suspend these officers. To this, Mehta replied that the court should not suspend them itself, but should direct the competent authorities to take action. The court should take this entire matter seriously. He referred to Section 54 of the PMLA, under which action can be taken against officers who interfere with the investigation. 'TMC workers turned the court into Jantar Mantar' The Solicitor General said that before the hearing in the Calcutta High Court, TMC workers had turned the court into Jantar Mantar (a protest site in Delhi). He said, "This commotion did not happen suddenly, but was planned by the TMC's legal cell. They sent messages asking people to come." The court commented, "Was the court turned into Jantar Mantar?" Mehta replied in the affirmative. The ED alleges that their lawyer, the ASG, was not allowed to argue properly in the High Court, and his microphone was repeatedly muted. On the issue of maintainability, Mehta said that ED officials filed the petition as citizens of India who were affected by the incident. Earlier, the house of a CBI Joint Director had been gheraoed and vandalized. 'Mamata Banerjee illegally entered with the DCP' Mehta said, 'The ED raided the house of a private company and an individual associated with it, but Mamata Banerjee, along with the DGP, Commissioner, and DCP, illegally entered the premises, took away documents, and seized the phones of the ED officials. We demand that state officials understand that they cannot participate in protests with political leaders. This affects the morale of central agencies and obstructs investigations. We want the court to order the MHA and DoPT to suspend these officers.' Mehta read out messages from a TMC WhatsApp group in court, which were related to obstructing court proceedings. The Supreme Court said that this is a very serious matter and we are issuing a notice to the state government. Sibal and Banerjee represent the Bengal government Mehta asked what was there to hide that the Chief Minister had to forcibly enter with the Police Commissioner? The Chief Minister entered the premises and, violating law and order, took possession of all digital devices and three incriminating documents and left at 12:15 PM. Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Kalyan Banerjee appeared on behalf of the West Bengal government. Sibal said that the information is being colored here. The Supreme Court said that we are very distressed that the High Court was not allowed to hear the case. Sibal said that a hearing took place yesterday. The court said no, on the first day. Sibal said that correct information was not given. This will not happen again. 'Prateek Jain's laptop contained election-related information' Sibal said that the allegation that the Chief Minister seized all the devices is false. He said, 'This is to create prejudice. No seizure took place until 12:05. Prateek Jain's laptop contained election-related information. They took the laptop and iPhone. That's all. No obstruction.' The ED's signatures are on the documents. The claims made in the petition contradict the seizure memo. IPAC had party materials, which is why the ED went there. This is a malicious act of collecting more material.' Sibal said the allegation against the Chief Minister that she took all the devices is false. He said, "Mamata only took her laptop and iPhone."