In a significant submission before the Delhi High Court, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has raised concerns over the safety and integrity of investigations conducted in Kolkata, alleging interference that could compromise evidence in a high-profile coal smuggling probe.
The matter came up during hearings on petitions filed by political consultants Rishi Raj Singh and Pratik Jain—directors of the Indian Political Action Committee—who have sought quashing of summons issued to them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Table of Contents
ED Alleges Interference in West Bengal Investigations
Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued that investigative agencies such as the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) face serious operational challenges in Kolkata. He submitted that past incidents have demonstrated obstruction by local authorities, making it difficult to carry out fair and independent investigations.
Raju alleged that during earlier search operations, officials encountered direct interference, including instances where senior state functionaries allegedly intervened and took custody of materials gathered during raids. He claimed that such actions undermine the sanctity of evidence and raise concerns about the feasibility of conducting investigations in the city.
The ASG further contended that if the accused were examined in Kolkata, there would be a real risk of evidence being compromised or unlawfully accessed due to their political connections and the prevailing environment.
Court Examines Feasibility of Appearance
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani questioned the ED’s reluctance to allow the accused to appear before its Kolkata office. The Court explored whether physical appearance in Kolkata could be considered a viable option, particularly given the logistical challenges cited by the petitioners.
In response, Raju maintained that conducting proceedings in Kolkata would not ensure the integrity of the investigation. He also opposed the idea of virtual hearings for evidentiary purposes, arguing that sensitive documents cannot be securely presented over video conferencing due to risks of exposure or manipulation.
Petitioners Cite Election Commitments
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Pratik Jain, submitted that his client is currently engaged in election-related assignments in West Bengal and is unable to travel to Delhi at short notice. He expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, either through virtual appearance or by appearing physically after the conclusion of ongoing electoral engagements.
A similar position was taken by Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Rishi Raj Singh, who emphasized that the investigation has been ongoing for several years and a short deferment would not prejudice the probe. He suggested that virtual participation could be allowed temporarily.
ED Offers Short Deferment
Taking note of the circumstances, the ED indicated its readiness to grant a brief extension and allow the petitioners to appear at its Delhi office after April 2. The Court recorded this submission and directed the agency to file its response to the petitions within five days.
Justice Bhambhani also cautioned the ED against relying on technical grounds, such as the lapse of earlier summons dates, to challenge the maintainability of the petitions. He urged the agency to proceed substantively with the investigation.
Parallel Proceedings Clubbed
The petition filed by Rishi Raj Singh was initially listed before Justice Manoj Jain. However, to avoid conflicting judicial views, the matter was transferred to Justice Bhambhani’s bench, where Pratik Jain’s plea is already being heard.
Next Hearing on April 9
The case is scheduled for further hearing on April 9, where the Court is expected to examine the ED’s response and consider the broader issues surrounding the conduct of investigations and the rights of individuals summoned under the PMLA.
The proceedings underscore the ongoing tension between investigative agencies and regional administrative structures, while also highlighting procedural questions around fairness, convenience, and evidentiary safeguards in high-stakes financial probes.
