Overview On January 15, 2026 , the BJP criticized the Supreme Court's observations regarding the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) petition concerning alleged obstructions during raids at Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) premises. The BJP characterized these observations as a "serious indictment" of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and her government, accusing her of using state machinery to protect individuals implicated in coal smuggling and money laundering. Key Developments Supreme Court's Intervention The Supreme Court described the ED's allegation of obstruction by Ms. Banerjee as "very serious" and agreed to examine whether state law-enforcing agencies can interfere with a central agency's investigation into serious offenses. The court stayed the FIR filed in West Bengal against ED officials who conducted raids at the I-PAC office and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain , on January 8, 2026 . The state police were directed to protect the CCTV footage of the raids. Notices Issued A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul Pancholi issued notices to Ms. Banerjee , the West Bengal Government , Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Kumar , and other top police officials. These notices were in response to the ED's petitions seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against them for allegedly obstructing raids at I-PAC premises. BJP's Reaction Amit Malviya , the BJP co-in-charge for West Bengal, stated that the Supreme Court's observation was a "serious indictment" of Mamata Banerjee and her government. He highlighted the court's warning that obstructing central agencies investigating grave economic offenses could lead to lawlessness. Malviya further alleged that Ms. Banerjee abused her power to protect corruption by using state machinery to shield those accused of coal smuggling and money laundering and to intimidate central agencies. ED's Allegations The ED's plea in the apex court stems from events on January 8, 2026 , when ED officials faced obstructions during raids at the I-PAC office in Salt Lake and the residence of Pratik Jain in Kolkata , in connection with a coal smuggling case. The probe agency claims that Ms. Banerjee entered the premises and removed "key" evidence related to the probe. TMC's Response The Chief Minister has accused the central agency of overreach, while her party, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) , has denied the ED's allegation of obstructing its probe. The state police have registered an FIR against ED officers. UPSC Relevance This news article is relevant to the UPSC Civil Services Exam , particularly for GS Paper 2 (Polity and Governance) and GS Paper 3 (Economy and Internal Security) . It touches upon issues of federalism, the powers and jurisdiction of central investigative agencies, and allegations of corruption and misuse of power. Key Areas for UPSC Preparation Federalism: The conflict between the central government and state governments regarding the jurisdiction of investigative agencies. Enforcement Directorate (ED): Its role, powers, and limitations. Corruption and Governance: The impact of corruption on governance and economic development. Supreme Court's Role: The judiciary's role in safeguarding the independence of investigative agencies and upholding the rule of law. Important Facts The Supreme Court is examining allegations of obstruction by Mamata Banerjee in an ED probe. The ED raids were conducted on January 8, 2026 , at the I-PAC office and Pratik Jain's residence. The probe is related to a coal smuggling case. The BJP has accused Mamata Banerjee of misusing state machinery to protect those involved in corruption. The TMC has denied the allegations and accused the ED of overreach.