The Supreme Court of India on March 24, 2026, asked the West Bengal government if the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could approach the state police for a remedy regarding the alleged interference by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee during the ED’s raids on the political consultancy firm I-PAC. This comes amid growing controversy surrounding the ED's legal plea under Article 32 of the Constitution, which seeks a CBI investigation into the alleged obstruction of its raids by Mamata Banerjee and her government.

The court was hearing the objections raised by Bengal regarding the maintainability of the ED's plea. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, argued that the ED could seek a remedy from the state police rather than filing a petition under Article 32, which allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court over violations of their fundamental rights.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, leading the bench, questioned whether it would be appropriate for the ED to approach the state police for relief when the charges were against the state government itself. The judge pointed out, “The Chief Minister barges into an ED investigation, and your idea of remedy for the ED is to go to the state government, which is headed by the CM and inform them about it and seek a remedy?”

The case revolves around the January 8 raid on I-PAC’s office in Kolkata and the residence of I-PAC chief Prateek Jain in connection with a money laundering probe linked to the alleged coal scam. During the raid, Mamata Banerjee allegedly interfered by rushing to the scene and removing documents, including a laptop and phone. The ED has termed this act a “gross abuse of power,” while the Trinamool Congress (TMC) claims the raids were politically motivated, especially given the proximity to Bengal’s upcoming elections.

The Supreme Court's inquiry into whether ED officers, as Indian citizens, can seek constitutional remedies under Article 32 further intensified the legal battle. The court maintained that ED officers could individually file a petition under Article 32, especially considering the alleged violation of their fundamental rights during the raids. The case is set to be heard again in April, with the political and legal implications continuing to make headlines ahead of the April 2026 elections in Bengal.