ED Alleges Evidence Removal During I-PAC Raids: What Law Says on Obstruction

A high-stakes legal and political confrontation unfolded after the Enforcement Directorate accused personnel linked to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of removing documents and electronic devices during an ongoing search operation connected to the political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC).

The searches, conducted on January 8, 2026, were part of a money-laundering investigation linked to alleged coal smuggling and hawala transactions. Raids were carried out at multiple locations in Kolkata and Delhi, including the residence of I-PAC co-founder Pratik Jain and the firm’s Salt Lake office.

According to the ED, the operation escalated into a confrontation when the Chief Minister, accompanied by aides and state police personnel, arrived at two of the search locations while proceedings were underway. The agency claims that during this intervention, physical documents and electronic devices were taken away from the premises and placed inside a vehicle — visuals of which later surfaced publicly.

In a submission before the Calcutta High Court, the ED described the incident as obstruction of lawful search proceedings, alleging interference in a statutory investigation by individuals holding constitutional authority. The agency has stated that it is preparing a formal incident report and may initiate further legal action based on its findings.

What the Law Says Under PMLA

Search and seizure operations conducted by the ED are governed by Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Under this provision, the ED is empowered to enter and search any premises if it has reason to believe that proceeds of crime or relevant records are concealed there.

The law mandates that:

• Searches must be conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses

• All seized items must be clearly inventoried

• A detailed panchnama must be prepared, recording every item seized

• A seizure memo must be issued to the person from whom materials are taken

Once seized, the custody of documents and devices rests solely with the investigating agency unless returned through a lawful process.

Legal precedents, including rulings by the Supreme Court, have clarified that individuals are entitled to a list of seized materials and copies of relevant documents at appropriate stages of proceedings — but not to physically remove items during an active search.

Interference, concealment, or removal of materials during a lawful search can potentially attract charges related to obstruction of justice under PMLA and other applicable criminal provisions, depending on intent and circumstances.

Mamata Banerjee’s Stand

Mamata Banerjee has categorically rejected the ED’s allegations. She has maintained that the agency was attempting to seize internal political strategy data belonging to the Trinamool Congress, including hard disks and documents unrelated to the money-laundering probe.

Calling the raids politically motivated, she argued that party data cannot be equated with proceeds of crime and claimed that she was merely retrieving her party’s internal material. According to her, the ED exceeded its jurisdiction by targeting documents linked to electoral planning rather than financial wrongdoing.

Why This Case Matters

The confrontation raises serious constitutional and legal questions about:

• The limits of investigative authority

• The role of elected officials during enforcement actions

• The legal threshold for obstruction under PMLA

As the matter proceeds in court, its outcome could have wider implications for how central agencies conduct searches involving political entities and how far constitutional office holders can intervene without crossing legal boundaries.