By Dr Adish C. Aggarwala*
PMLA Probe Obstruction Tests Constitutional Norms
Interference in lawful investigation and judicial proceedings is a matter of Constitutional concern. The developments being reported from West Bengal give rise to serious Constitutional disquiet. The Chief Minister, Ms Mamata Banerjee, is reported to have interfered with lawful raid proceedings, allegedly removed official documents, and was involved in circumstances that led to an unprecedented situation before the Calcutta High Court, compelling the Court to adjourn the matter to January 14, 2026.
These reported events are not limited to a single investigative action or judicial hearing. Rather, they raise fundamental questions regarding the functioning of constitutional governance, the rule of law, and the institutional balance envisaged under the Constitution of India. The alleged obstruction of a statutory investigation and the resulting impact on the Court, as reported, illustrate how such circumstances may have implications for the independence of institutions and the administration of justice.
At the centre of the matter are search operations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). These raids, conducted on January 8, 2026, were reportedly part of an ongoing 2020 investigation relating to alleged illegal coal mining and proceeds of crime. Locations reportedly included the office of the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) in Salt Lake, Kolkata, and the residence of its director/co-founder, Pratik (or Prateek) Jain. Media reports indicate that the probe involves alleged coal smuggling syndicates, hawala transactions reportedly worth tens of crores allegedly routed to I-PAC, and proceeds of crime from illegal coal excavation in West Bengal. Such investigations, by their very nature, involve scrutiny of financial transactions, examination of records, and seizure of material that may bear upon the existence and movement of proceeds of crime. They are regulated by statute and subject to judicial oversight.
During these proceedings, it was reported to the Calcutta High Court that the lawful conduct of the search was interfered with and that official documents, electronic devices, including laptops and phones, and other materials were removed from both the office and the residence. According to filings by the ED, Ms Banerjee, along with aides and state police, allegedly entered the premises despite requests not to interfere, with visuals showing items being taken away in vehicles. These actions were described in the ED’s petition as obstruction of a statutory investigation under the PMLA.
These allegations, irrespective of their eventual adjudication, are of grave significance. Interference with a lawful investigation strikes at the integrity of the legal process itself. Investigative agencies function not as extensions of political authority but as statutory bodies bound by law. When their actions, taken within the framework of statute, are obstructed, the consequence may be administrative disruption and potential Constitutional injury.
The matter subsequently reached the Calcutta High Court on January 9, 2026, before Justice Suvra Ghosh. The Court heard petitions, including the ED’s plea seeking an FIR or CBI probe related to the reported obstruction. Proceedings were reportedly disrupted by an “unmanageable crowd,” overcrowding, and chaos in the courtroom. Despite repeated requests for non-parties to leave, the judge adjourned the matter to January 14, 2026. Courts are designed to operate insulated manner from external pressure. Any circumstances that constrain a court’s ability to proceed in the ordinary course merit careful reflection.
The rule of law constitutes the cornerstone of India’s Constitutional democracy. It ensures equality before the law, accountability of authority, and the supremacy of legal processes over individual power. No person, irrespective of the office held, stands above the law or beyond judicial scrutiny. This is not a rhetorical assertion but a foundational Constitutional guarantee.
Investigative and enforcement agencies are required to act strictly in accordance with the law. Their actions are subject to challenge, review, and correction through judicial processes. However, the legitimacy of such challenges lies in recourse to law, not in obstruction of lawful procedure. Any interference in the discharge of statutory functions undermines the framework through which accountability is enforced.
The developments are equally concerning for their implications for the authority and dignity of Constitutional courts. The judiciary occupies a unique position in the Constitutional scheme. Its authority flows not from force or popularity but from public confidence in its independence and fearlessness. Circumstances that impede a court’s normal functioning raise concerns extending beyond the immediate case to the broader institutional environment.
As a former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, I underscore that Constitutional functionaries bear a higher obligation to uphold the law rather than weaken it. Public faith in the justice delivery system depends upon the unwavering principle that law must take its own course, uninfluenced by political power. We call for institutional restraint and urge all authorities to respect the separation of powers, refrain from interference in ongoing investigations, and ensure the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Political differences cannot justify short-circuiting legal processes or exerting pressure on institutions. On behalf of the All India Bar Association (AIBA), an appeal is also made to the competent authorities to ensure accountability strictly in accordance with law and to take all necessary steps to safeguard the independence of investigative agencies and the majesty of the judiciary. Democracy endures not through dominance, but through Constitutional discipline, institutional respect, and fidelity to the rule of law.
Those holding Constitutional office bear a heightened responsibility to uphold Constitutional values. Authority under the Constitution is accompanied by restraint. Public confidence in the justice delivery system rests on the assurance that legal processes will proceed without influence, intimidation, or obstruction. Any perception to the contrary erodes trust not only in particular institutions but in the Constitutional order itself.
The separation of powers is not an abstract doctrine but a practical safeguard. It requires that investigations be conducted without interference, that courts adjudicate without constraint, and that accountability be determined strictly in accordance with law. Political contestation, public mobilisation, or executive authority cannot override these boundaries.
In this context, institutional restraint assumes paramount importance. Authorities must respect the autonomy of investigative agencies operating within their statutory mandate. Equally, the sanctity of judicial proceedings must be preserved in both form and substance. Constitutional governance demands adherence to process as much as to outcome.
*Dr Adish C Aggarwala is a senior advocate and chairman of the All India Bar Association. He is an ex-president of the Supreme Court Bar Association and ex-vice chairman of the Bar Council of India.
