Introduction:

In the case of All India Trinamool Congress v. Union of India and Others (WPA/602/2026), the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Suvra Ghosh, examined a petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) seeking preservation and protection of its alleged confidential political data, which the party claimed had been seized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during a raid conducted on 8 January at the office of I-PAC, the political consultancy firm associated with the party’s election strategy, and the office of its director, Prateek Jain, the petition was filed amid intense political controversy surrounding the ED’s investigation into the alleged coal scam and related money laundering, during which the Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee, had rushed to the premises during the raid and allegedly taken away files and electronic devices, following which the ED approached the High Court accusing her of obstructing the investigation, while simultaneously the TMC moved the Court asserting that confidential political data had been unlawfully seized by the central agency, both matters were listed together, but during the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the ED, made a categorical statement that no seizure had been effected by the agency from the I-PAC office or from Prateek Jain, and that the panchnama prepared during the raid also reflected that no articles, documents, or digital devices were seized by the ED, in light of this statement, the Court found that the very foundation of the TMC’s petition no longer survived, and therefore disposed of the plea seeking preservation of data, while separately adjourning the ED’s petition alleging obstruction of investigation on the ground that similar proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court, thus bringing to a close, at least for the moment, the High Court proceedings relating to the alleged seizure of political data.

Arguments:

On behalf of the Trinamool Congress, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy strongly pressed that the party’s petition was independent and deserved to be heard regardless of any proceedings initiated by the ED before the Supreme Court, she argued that the party had approached the High Court with a legitimate and urgent concern that its confidential political and election-related data may have been accessed or taken away during the raid, which could severely prejudice the party’s internal functioning and electoral strategy, she relied upon the constitutional right to privacy as recognised in the landmark judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, submitting that political parties too are entitled to protection of sensitive data, particularly when such data relates to internal planning, voter outreach, and campaign strategies, she submitted that the party had a well-founded apprehension that its data could be misused, and therefore sought only a limited protective order restraining the ED from accessing or using such data, she also contended that the authorization for filing the petition had been duly granted by the national working committee member of the party, and that the deponent of the affidavit was a party member competent to represent the party’s interest, she further argued that the timing of the raid, ahead of upcoming elections, raised serious concerns about targeting of political strategists, and that judicial oversight was necessary to ensure that investigative agencies do not intrude into democratic processes, however, the Union of India and the ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and other government counsel, strongly objected to the maintainability of the petition, they argued that the entire writ petition was premised on an assumption that ED had seized political data, which was factually incorrect, as no seizure had taken place, they pointed out that the panchnama drawn at the site categorically showed that no documents or devices were taken by the agency, and therefore there was no infringement of any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner, they further submitted that if the petitioner was alleging interference with election-related processes, then the Election Commission of India should have been impleaded as a necessary party, which had not been done, they also questioned how the petitioner had any personal knowledge of the alleged seizure when neither the owner of the premises nor the person from whose custody the data was allegedly taken had approached the Court, and they argued that the person who swore the affidavit did not disclose any source of information and had no direct connection with the raid, rendering the petition speculative and vague, it was also contended that the premises raided did not belong to the political party but to I-PAC and its director, and therefore even assuming that data was present there, it could not automatically be treated as belonging to the petitioner political party, the Union further argued that if at all any grievance existed regarding illegal seizure, it was for the person whose premises were searched to approach the Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and not for a third party to invoke writ jurisdiction on assumptions, supplementing these submissions, the ASG stated in clear terms that whatever files or devices were taken away were taken by Mamata Banerjee and her associates, and not by the ED, and therefore unless she was made a party, no relief relating to preservation of data could even theoretically be granted, he also argued that similar matters relating to ED’s powers of search and seizure were pending before the Supreme Court, and judicial propriety required the High Court not to venture into issues which were already under consideration by the apex court, as the ASG began to argue on the scope of powers under Section 17 of the PMLA, the Court orally cautioned him to confine his submissions to maintainability, indicating that it did not intend to enter into the merits of the investigative powers at this stage.

Judgment:

After hearing extensive submissions, the Calcutta High Court focused on the core factual assertion made by the ED that no seizure had been effected from the offices of I-PAC or Prateek Jain on 8 January, Justice Suvra Ghosh noted that this statement was also supported by the panchnama prepared at the time of the search, which did not record seizure of any material, the Court observed that since the petitioner’s entire case was built on the allegation that the ED had seized confidential political data, and since the respondent agency had categorically denied any such seizure, the cause of action for the writ petition no longer existed, recording the statement of the ASG, the Court held that in view of such submissions, nothing remained to be adjudicated, and therefore the application seeking preservation of data was disposed of, the Court did not enter into broader constitutional questions regarding privacy or political rights, as the factual premise itself had collapsed, thereby rendering the petition infructuous, at the same time, the Court dealt separately with the petition filed by the ED alleging obstruction of investigation by Mamata Banerjee, and acceded to the request of the ASG for adjournment on the ground that similar petitions had already been filed before the Supreme Court, observing that the agency had chosen to pursue remedies before the apex court, and therefore the High Court would not proceed with parallel adjudication at that stage, the Court thus maintained judicial discipline and avoided conflicting proceedings, it is also noteworthy that in the previous hearing, the Court had been unable to hear arguments due to commotion in the courtroom, highlighting the intense political sensitivity surrounding the case, and following the High Court proceedings, the ED has already approached the Supreme Court seeking action regarding the alleged interference during the raid, thereby shifting the legal battle to the national level, in essence, the High Court’s decision was grounded not in political considerations but in strict legal logic: when no seizure by the agency is admitted and recorded, no judicial direction for preservation of data against that agency can be issued, and courts cannot proceed on assumptions or speculative fears, especially in writ jurisdiction which requires clear demonstration of infringement of legal or fundamental rights.