New Delhi, Feb 18: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that it has been “terrorised” in West Bengal, as the apex court adjourned hearing on its plea accusing the state government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee of interfering in recent search operations at the office of political consultancy firm Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC) and the residence of its co-founder Pratik Jain in Kolkata.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the federal anti-money laundering agency, strongly refuted the submission that the ED had “weaponised” its powers.

The remarks came after senior advocate Siddharth Luthra contended that the ED must justify the “weaponisation” of its authority.

“It (ED) has not been weaponised, it has been terrorised,” ASG Raju said.

After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, stated that the ED is likely to file its rejoinder during the day, a Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan posted the matter for further hearing on March 18.

The hearing was adjourned last week following a request made due to the ill health of senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

During the brief hearing, SG Mehta, representing the ED, informed the apex court that he had been apprised about Sibal’s inability to appear.

“I can’t oppose on this ground. If it can be kept on 18th February,” the Centre’s second-highest law officer submitted.

Acceding to the request, the Justice Mishra-led Bench had deferred the matter for further hearing on February 18.

The ED has approached the top court seeking directions to register FIRs against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the state Director General of Police (DGP), and the Kolkata Police Commissioner, alleging obstruction of lawful duties during the federal agency’s simultaneous search operations.

In her counter-affidavit, Chief Minister Banerjee has denied all allegations of interference and obstruction, asserting that her limited presence on the premises was solely to retrieve confidential and proprietary data belonging to her Trinamool Congress (AITC).

According to the affidavit, CM Banerjee visited Pratik Jain’s residence at Loudon Street and I-PAC’s office in Bidhannagar on January 8, 2026, after receiving information that sensitive political data of the Trinamool was being accessed during the searches. She maintained that the data was “vitally linked to the AITC’s strategy for the upcoming Legislative Assembly election”.

The affidavit stated that when she reached the premises, she “politely requested the officials of the Enforcement Directorate to be allowed to retrieve the Party’s data and the devices they were stored in and files containing prints of the same”.

It further claimed that “the officers of the Enforcement Directorate present thereat did not object to this request and permitted her to retrieve some of these devices and physical files”.

“After she had done so, the Answering Respondent (CM Banerjee) left the premises so as not to inconvenience the officials of the Enforcement Directorate in any way,” the counter affidavit said, adding that the ED’s own panchnamas record that the searches continued thereafter and were conducted “peacefully and in an orderly manner”.

CM Banerjee has also argued that neither the Trinamool nor its officials are accused in the alleged coal scam, and therefore, the ED cannot claim any right to the party’s proprietary data.

The counter affidavit has further accused the ED of acting with mala fide intent, alleging that the searches were carried out in the run-up to the 2026 West Bengal Assembly elections and after a prolonged period of inaction.

It has questioned the timing of the operations, claiming they coincided with I-PAC possessing “critical documents”, including a proposed list of candidates for the upcoming polls.

Alleging violations of statutory safeguards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the affidavit also states that the ED failed to produce any audio or video recordings of the searches. This, it claimed, raises a “strong presumption” that the searches were clandestine and aimed at accessing confidential political data.

Earlier, on January 15, the Supreme Court had stayed the FIRs registered by the West Bengal Police against ED officials in connection with the searches, and had also directed the preservation of CCTV footage and other digital storage devices containing recordings of the searched premises and the surrounding areas.

Jaipur, Feb 17: In one of its biggest operations so far in the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) scam case, the Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted simultaneous raids at multiple locations across the country on Tuesday.

According to sources, dozens of ACB teams carried out coordinated searches at around 15 locations, including Jaipur, Barmer, Sikar, Jalore, Delhi, Bihar, and Jharkhand.

The raids are part of the ongoing investigation into alleged corruption in the state’s flagship ‘Har Gahr Jal’ (Tap in every home) drinking water scheme.

ACB teams reportedly searched the premises of retired Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), a senior IAS officer, along with other accused individuals linked to the alleged scam.

Officials are examining documents and questioning the retired official regarding the tender allocation process during his tenure.

The retired official was accused of awarding contracts worth crores of rupees to preferred companies allegedly on the basis of fake experience certificates.

Officials said the questioning is part of the broader probe into irregularities in procurement and tendering under the Jal Jeevan Mission.

More than half a dozen suspects have reportedly been detained for questioning in the operation being conducted under the supervision of ACB Director General Govind Gupta and Additional Director General Smita Srivastava.

Among those being questioned are officials and contractors suspected of involvement in the alleged irregularities.

According to sources, formal arrests of some individuals may be announced later in the day, depending on the outcome of interrogations and evidence verification.

The crackdown is not limited to Rajasthan. ACB teams have also carried out searches in Bihar and Jharkhand, where companies linked to the case are suspected to have operations.

The entire operation is being supervised by DIG Dr. Rameshwar Singh and SP Pushpendra Singh Rathore, who is also heading the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case.

Officials have reportedly seized digital devices, diaries, and documents related to bank transactions, which are now being examined as part of the investigation.

The Jal Jeevan Mission scam is believed to involve irregularities worth over Rs 900 crore.

Investigators claimed that certain companies secured contracts by submitting forged experience certificates.

Earlier in the case, former minister Mahesh Joshi and several engineers were arrested and sent to jail. The latest action signals that the investigation is now moving toward senior-level officials and major players in the alleged scam.

New Delhi, Feb 16: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed, as withdrawn, a plea filed by 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Abu Salem seeking premature release in terms of the extradition arrangement between India and Portugal.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta permitted Abu Salem to withdraw the special leave petition (SLP) after senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing for him, sought permission to approach the Bombay High Court for an early hearing of the pending matter.

“Mr Rishi Malhotra, learned senior counsel, after arguing for sometime states that this petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open for the petitioner to go before the High Court for an early hearing and disposal of the pending matter. Petition is dismissed with liberty,” it ordered.

Abu Salem, who was convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) in connection with the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, claimed that he was entitled to be released upon completion of 25 years of imprisonment in terms of the extradition treaty between India and Portugal.

He also sought the benefit of 3 years and 16 days of jail-earned remission for good conduct in computing the 25-year sentence.

Abu Salem had moved the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the authorities to specify a release date upon completion of 25 years. However, it, in an order passed on July 7, 2025, prima facie observed that the 25-year period was “yet to be completed, including the alleged period of pre-trial detention or incarceration” and refused interim relief.

Before the Supreme Court, Malhotra submitted that his client was seeking ordinary and annual good conduct remission and alleged that the authorities’ calculation that Abu Salem had not completed 25 years was an “arithmetical error”.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s July 2022 judgment, which reckoned October 12, 2005, as the date of commencement of his detention, the senior counsel further argued that Abu Salem had already “surpassed 10 months” beyond the 25-year period and described the case as one of “habeas corpus, illegal custody”.

However, the Justice Vikram Nath-led Bench said it was not inclined to entertain the plea at this stage, adding that the matter essentially concerned findings recorded by the Bombay High Court and Abu Salem should move an appropriate application there.

The Maharashtra government has maintained that Abu Salem has not yet completed 25 years of imprisonment. The Inspector General of Prisons & Correctional Services informed the Bombay High Courtthat till March 31, 2025, he had undergone 19 years, 5 months and 18 days of his prison term.

Abu Salem had moved the Bombay HC seeking a direction to the authorities to specify a release date upon completion of 25 years, contending that his continued incarceration violated his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, which claimed 257 lives and injured over 1,400 people. Following his extradition under the Indo-Portugal treaty, his sentence was commuted to 25 years’ imprisonment in line with the assurances given to the Portuguese authorities.