ED Raids I-PAC’s Kolkata Office
On January 8, 2026, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) carried out search operations at the Kolkata office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC), along with premises linked to its senior functionaries. The raids, conducted in Salt Lake’s Sector V and at a central Kolkata residence associated with I-PAC director Pratik Jain, immediately sparked a political storm in West Bengal. Given I-PAC’s close advisory role to the ruling Trinamool Congress (TMC) ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections, the action quickly moved beyond a legal inquiry to become a flashpoint in Centre–state relations.
Why the Raids Matter
I-PAC is widely known as one of India’s most influential political consulting firms, having shaped election strategies for multiple parties across states. Its association with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and the TMC since 2019 has made it a key backstage player in Bengal politics. The ED’s move, therefore, is not merely an investigation into alleged financial wrongdoing but also a test case for how enforcement agencies operate in politically sensitive environments—especially during an election cycle.
The Core Allegations: Following the Money Trail
The ED’s action stems from an ongoing money laundering investigation linked to an illegal coal mining racket in West Bengal. The predicate offence—registered earlier by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)—alleges large-scale theft of coal from leasehold areas between 2017 and 2020. According to investigators, the illegal operations generated substantial proceeds of crime that were later routed through a network of intermediaries.
The ED claims that a portion of these funds, estimated at around ₹20 crore, was allegedly laundered through hawala channels and ultimately transferred to entities connected to I-PAC. These transactions, the agency argues, form part of the “layering” process typically used to obscure the origin of illicit money. Based on this financial trail, the ED invoked its statutory powers to conduct searches and seize potential evidence.
Legal Foundations of the ED Investigation
The investigation is being conducted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. Under this law, the ED is authorised to probe proceeds derived from scheduled offences once a primary criminal case has been registered by another agency. In this instance, the alleged coal theft qualifies as a scheduled offence, allowing the ED to pursue linked financial transactions.
Section 17 of the PMLA empowers the agency to conduct searches and seizures if it has “reason to believe” that proceeds of crime or related documents are concealed at a given location. The ED maintains that specific intelligence inputs and transaction records justified its action against I-PAC-linked premises. Additionally, the agency has moved the Calcutta High Court seeking judicial scrutiny into alleged obstruction during the raid, including claims of interference by state authorities.
Political Pushback and Legal Contestation
The raids triggered immediate political backlash. The TMC has accused the ED of acting as a tool of the central government, alleging that sensitive political and electoral data were the real targets. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s public intervention at one of the searched premises further escalated tensions, with the ED alleging misconduct and the state government asserting its right to protect party information.
I-PAC, for its part, has challenged the legality and intent of the searches, arguing that it is being dragged into a case for political reasons rather than financial culpability. The matter is now under judicial consideration, with the High Court expected to weigh competing claims of investigative authority and constitutional propriety.
Law Enforcement or Political Signal?
The ED’s raids on I-PAC sit at the intersection of law, politics, and perception. Legally, the agency operates within the framework of the PMLA, provided it can substantiate the alleged money trail. Politically, however, the timing and optics raise inevitable questions about neutrality and intent. As the courts examine the evidence and procedures, the episode underscores a broader challenge: ensuring accountability for financial crimes without eroding trust in institutions during a charged electoral moment.
(With agency inputs)
