The Supreme Court will hear the ED’s petition alleging interference by the West Bengal government during I-PAC search operations linked to its probe.

The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to take up on Thursday a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate, which has accused the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of obstructing its search operations linked to the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC).

According to the cause list, a bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi will hear the matter later in the day. The ED has sought urgent judicial intervention, alleging that its officers faced resistance while conducting coordinated searches at the I-PAC office and at the residence of its co-founder, Pratik Jain.

In its plea, the central agency has claimed that it was prevented from discharging its statutory duties and that alleged interference by state authorities undermined the fairness of the ongoing investigation. Anticipating the ED’s approach to the apex court, the West Bengal government has already lodged a caveat, requesting that no order be passed without hearing its side.

Parallel legal proceedings are also underway. On Wednesday, the Calcutta High Court considered a petition accusing the Chief Minister of misusing her constitutional office by allegedly creating hurdles for central agency officials. Separate counter-petitions have been filed by Pratik Jain and the All India Trinamool Congress.

In its response, the Trinamool Congress alleged that the searches were politically motivated, claiming that since I-PAC works as the party’s election strategy agency, the action was aimed at accessing documents related to preparations for the 2026 Assembly elections and allegedly benefiting the Bharatiya Janata Party.

The case adds another layer to the ongoing friction between central investigative agencies and opposition-ruled states. The Supreme Court’s response could set important boundaries on how search operations are conducted when allegations of political interference arise. For political parties and consultancies alike, the outcome may clarify how far investigative powers extend during sensitive pre-election periods.