SC pauses FIRs against ED officers in I-PAC raid case, orders preservation of CCTV

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it was prima facie of the view that a “serious issue” has arisen over alleged interference by state authorities in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation, and issued notice to the respondents in the matter. The court observed that larger questions relating to the independence of central agencies and adherence to the rule of law require examination.

Hearing arguments from all sides, the bench noted submissions that the Chief Minister, who enjoys Z-plus security, entered the searched premises along with senior police officials, and that it was the duty of the state police leadership to ensure non-interference with a lawful investigation. The court also took note of arguments that while an untoward incident occurred on January 9, proceedings on January 14 were peaceful and adjourned at the ED’s request.

The court said it was necessary to examine the matter to ensure that offenders are not shielded under the cover of law-enforcing agencies of a particular state. It warned that allowing such issues to remain undecided could worsen the situation and lead to lawlessness, especially when different political parties govern different states.

The Solicitor General argued that the matter required urgent examination by the Supreme Court, submitting that involvement of senior state police officials raised doubts over the fairness of any state-led investigation. It was also argued that registration of an FIR in a cognisable offence is mandatory, and that investigation by a central agency may be required in the larger interest of justice.

Counsel appearing for the Chief Minister and the state contended that the petitions were not maintainable and that there was a pattern of central agency action during elections. They submitted that the Chief Minister had entered the premises in her capacity as a political party chairperson after receiving information about unauthorised entry, and that the premises contained only election-related material beyond the ED’s remit.

Issuing notice, the court directed respondents to preserve CCTV footage and other digital records of the premises searched on January 8. It stayed further proceedings and investigation relating to the ED officers till the next date, while granting two weeks’ time for filing counter affidavits.