The debate also touched upon broader questions of federalism, the independence of investigative agencies, and the rule of law versus the “law of the ruler.”  Ultimately, the discussion highlighted a core challenge: ensuring that law enforcement agencies operate effectively and independently

In an unprecedented and highly dramatic turn of events in West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally intervened during an ongoing Enforcement Directorate (ED) search operation, walking away with documents and a hard disk that the agency described as crucial evidence. The incident unfolded at the residence of Pratik Jain, the head of I-PAC (Indian Political Action Committee), a political consultancy firm currently associated with the Trinamool Congress (TMC). As ED officials were conducting searches linked to a major money laundering probe allegedly connected to illegal coal smuggling, the West Bengal Chief Minister arrived dramatically at the scene, accompanied by top police officers including the Kolkata Police Commissioner.

Mamata Banerjee entered the premises empty-handed, stayed for approximately 20–25 minutes, and then left holding a green folder and a hard disk — items she later declared she had “brought back.” In fiery statements made both at the spot and later, she accused the BJP-led central government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Union Home Minister Amit Shah of orchestrating the raids to seize the TMC’s internal election strategy documents, candidate lists, booth president details, and sensitive campaign data ahead of upcoming assembly elections.

The BJP has launched a scathing attack, describing Mamata Banerjee’s actions as “shameful abuse of power,” “attempt to shield suspects,” and even suggesting that she should be arrested for interfering in a central probe and removing potential evidence. Several BJP leaders called it possibly the first time in India that a Chief Minister allegedly attempted to destroy or steal evidence during an active ED raid. A party spokesperson asserted that no individual — not even a Chief Minister — has the right to walk into a crime scene, interrupt officials, and walk away with potential evidence. He asked pointedly: “People want to know what is in that green file?”

TMC leaders strongly defended the Chief Minister, arguing that I-PAC handles TMC’s IT and media operations and that the BJP and ED keep changing their narrative about whether I-PAC is a party office or a private entity. They questioned the credibility of the ED, whose conviction rate in PMLA cases (finally adjudicated by courts) they described as extremely low (around 0.7% according to some opposition claims, though government sources cite a much higher figure of ~94% in decided cases).

A party spokesperson reinforced the narrative of political vendetta, noting that Mamata Banerjee did not rush to intervene in earlier arrests of party leaders but acted decisively here due to fears over sensitive files exposing financial links, such as alleged transfers from Jal Jeevan Mission contractors to I-PAC. She accused the Centre of using agencies to intimidate the opposition ahead of elections and highlighted inconsistencies in agency actions.

A Supreme court advocate provided a balanced legal and political perspective, acknowledging that agencies have the prerogative to investigate but criticizing the timing of high-profile raids just before state elections. He drew parallels to the Delhi excise case against Arvind Kejriwal and the prolonged National Herald probe against Congress leaders, suggesting such actions often serve as tools for narrative-building and political oppression rather than swift justice. He noted that trials rarely conclude quickly, and post-election momentum fades, raising questions about genuine investigative intent.

A section of media highlighted the clash of narratives: Mamata's "fighter" image and street politics resonating with her core support base, versus concerns over setting dangerous precedents for regional leaders confronting central agencies. Some noted the potential for this to energize TMC's anti-Delhi sentiment in Bengal, while others warned it could backfire amid strong anti-incumbency after 15 years of TMC rule.

The debate also touched upon broader questions of federalism, the independence of investigative agencies, and the rule of law versus the “law of the ruler.” Opposition leaders repeatedly highlighted Supreme Court observations in recent years criticizing the alleged misuse of ED as a political tool, while government supporters emphasized that the proper forum to challenge any agency action is the court — not physical intervention at a raid site.

Ultimately, the discussion highlighted a core challenge: ensuring that law enforcement agencies operate effectively and independently, free from political overreach by either the Centre or states. As West Bengal gears up for a crucial electoral battle, this episode has intensified the narrative war, with the TMC framing it as an attack on democracy and the BJP portraying it as evidence of corruption and fear of accountability. The matter remains sub judice, with the ED approaching courts over the alleged obstruction, setting the stage for further legal and political confrontations in the run-up to 2026.