- Supreme Court Hearing Schedule (Jan 12, 2026)
- Courtroom: Court No. 1 (Chief Justice's Court).
- Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
- Item Number: The matter is listed as a Fresh Admission item (likely within the first 5-10 items).
In the high-stakes legal battle between Enforcement Directorate (ED) and West Bengal govt. ED is currently pursuing the two distinct legal routes in the Supreme Court in the case related to its raids on I-PAC (the political consultancy firm associated with the Trinamool Congress).
While the ED initially considered an Article 32 writ petition (for direct violation of fundamental rights/obstruction of justice), the focus has shifted toward Article 136, which involves a Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Why Article 136?
The ED is using Article 136 to challenge the Calcutta High Court's refusal to grant an urgent hearing on January 9.
The Trigger: Justice Suvra Ghosh adjourned the matter to January 14 due to "chaos" in the courtroom.
The ED's Argument: The agency argues that a delay of even four days is fatal to the investigation, as digital evidence allegedly "stolen" by the State administration could be wiped or tampered with before the High Court reconvenes.
The Power of 136: This article gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant "Special Leave" to appeal against any order or determination from any court in India.
Tomorrow's Bench (Monday, Jan 12, 2026)
The SLP under Article 136 is expected to be mentioned alongside the main petition before:
Court No. 1: Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The "Caveat" Factor: Usually, in an SLP, the petitioner (ED) tries to get an "ad-interim" stay or direction on the first day. However, because of the Caveat, the Supreme Court Registry has already alerted the West Bengal government's legal team. They will be present in the courtroom the moment the case is called.
What the ED is specifically asking for under Art. 136:
Immediate Custody: That the digital devices (laptops and phones) allegedly taken from the raid site be deposited with the Supreme Court Registry or a central forensic lab.
Stay on Police Action: To prevent the West Bengal Police from filing "retaliatory" FIRs against ED officers who conducted the raid.
CBI Monitoring: A direction that the CBI should oversee the "recovery" of the evidence allegedly removed by the Chief Minister.
Current Status: The case is in the "Pre-Admission" stage. Tomorrow morning (10:30 AM), the CJI will decide whether to "Issue Notice" or pass an "Interim Order."
Role of the Caveat Tomorrow
The West Bengal government’s Caveat is the most critical document for the morning session.
Presence of Counsel: Because the caveat was filed and served, the Court Registry has already notified the State’s Advocate-on-Record. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal is expected to be present to represent the State.
No Ex-Parte Orders: Usually, the ED would ask the CJI for an "ad-interim" direction (like the immediate return of the laptop and green folder seen with the CM) before the other side even knows about the case. The caveat makes this impossible. The CJI must hear the State’s objections before passing any such order.
What the ED is seeking (The Article 136 Route)
The ED is arguing that the Calcutta High Court failed to act when its proceedings were disrupted by "mobs" on Friday. They are asking the Supreme Court to:
Seal the Evidence: Force the State to deposit the digital devices allegedly removed by the CM into the custody of the Supreme Court.
CBI Probe: Direct the CBI to investigate the "theft" of evidence from a central agency's search site.
Protection: Restrain the State Police from taking any coercive action against the ED officers who conducted the I-PAC raid.
The State’s Defense
The State will likely argue that:
The ED’s raid was a "fishing expedition" to steal confidential 2026 election data.
There is no "urgent" need for Supreme Court intervention since the High Court is already seized of the matter and will hear it on Wednesday (Jan 14).
