- West Bengal government filed the caveat today, January 10, 2026, through Advocate-on-Record Kunal Mimani.
- The matter is set to be "mentioned" for urgent listing on Monday morning before Court No. 1, presided over by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
- Effect of Caveat: Because the West Bengal government's caveat is already lodged, the CJI’s bench cannot pass any interim order (like staying the local police probe or ordering a CBI takeover) without hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (representing the State) first.
In a major legal escalation, the West Bengal government filed a caveat in the Supreme Court on January 10, 2026, directly linked to the recent Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids on I-PAC (the political consultancy firm associated with the Trinamool Congress).
This move is a strategic legal "shield" designed to prevent the central agency from obtaining any emergency orders from the apex court behind closed doors.
The Immediate Context: The I-PAC Raids
The caveat was filed following dramatic events on January 8, 2026, when the ED raided the I-PAC headquarters in Kolkata and the residence of its director, Pratik Jain, as part of a money-laundering investigation into an alleged coal pilferage scam.
The Conflict: The ED has alleged that Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally entered the raid site and removed "crucial evidence," including physical documents and electronic devices, while being assisted by state police.
The State's Counter-Claim: The West Bengal government and TMC have accused the ED of "overreach" and attempting to seize confidential election strategies and party data ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections.
Why the Caveat was filed by Bengal government
The Bengal government anticipated that the ED would move the Supreme Court to seek urgent intervention (such as a CBI probe into the CM's alleged interference or protection for ED officials).
Purpose: By filing the caveat, the State government has legally "warned" the Supreme Court that no order—interim or otherwise—should be passed without first giving the West Bengal government an opportunity to present its version of events.
The Goal: To prevent the ED from getting an ex-parte order (one-sided) that could potentially transfer investigations to the CBI or lead to other strictures against the state administration.
Legal Status of the Case
As of today, January 10, 2026:
In the Calcutta High Court: The ED has already filed a writ petition seeking a CBI probe against the Chief Minister. However, the High Court adjourned the hearing to January 14, 2026, after disruptions in the courtroom.
In the Supreme Court: The ED has formally moved the apex court under Article 32, alleging obstruction of justice. Because the State's caveat is now on record, the Supreme Court registry is mandated to notify the West Bengal government's counsel before the matter is heard by a Bench.
As of January 10, 2026, the legal battle between the West Bengal Government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved to the highest level.
Here is the current status of the caveat and the upcoming court proceedings:
1. The Supreme Court Status
Filing Date: The West Bengal government filed the caveat today, January 10, 2026, through Advocate-on-Record Kunal Mimani.
The ED's Move: Almost simultaneously, the ED has filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. They are alleging "obstruction of justice" and "theft of evidence" by the State administration during the I-PAC raids.
The Bench: While a specific bench has not been formally notified in the cause list yet, the matter is expected to be mentioned for urgent listing before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Monday, January 12, 2026.
Impact of the Caveat: Because the caveat is active, the Supreme Court Registry cannot list the ED's plea for an ex-parte hearing. The State’s counsel (likely to be led by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal) must be informed of the exact time and courtroom before the judges hear the ED.
2. Parallel Proceedings in Calcutta High Court
The Supreme Court case is running alongside a volatile situation in the High Court:
Next Hearing: January 14, 2026.
Justice Suvra Ghosh adjourned the matter yesterday (January 9) after the courtroom became unmanageable due to overcrowding and shouting between pro-TMC and pro-BJP lawyers.
The ED’s Demand: The agency is asking the High Court to order a CBI investigation into Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and State DGP Rajeev Kumar for their alleged role in removing documents from the raid site.
The breakdown of the upcoming schedule and the bench details:
1. Supreme Court: Monday, January 12, 2026
The ED has formally filed an Article 32 petition (Writ Petition) alleging "obstruction of justice" and "theft of evidence" by the Chief Minister.
Urgent Mentioning: The matter is set to be "mentioned" for urgent listing on Monday morning before Court No. 1, presided over by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Item Number: Since it is a fresh filing, it is expected to appear as a "Supplementary" item or be mentioned at 10:30 AM during the miscellaneous mentioning period.
Effect of Caveat: Because the West Bengal government's caveat is already lodged, the CJI’s bench cannot pass any interim order (like staying the local police probe or ordering a CBI takeover) without hearing Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (representing the State) first.
2. Calcutta High Court: Wednesday, January 14, 2026
While the Supreme Court deals with the "Constitutional Obstruction" aspect, the High Court is still handling the granular details of the raids.
The Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh.
The Conflict: The ED wants a CBI FIR registered against Mamata Banerjee and the State DGP. Conversely, the State government has filed a counter-petition demanding the ED return "confidential election data" seized during the raids.
In the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, a Caveat is a preemptive legal notice filed in a court to ensure that no order or judgment is passed against a person without giving them a fair opportunity to be heard.
It is governed by Section 148A, which was added to the CPC in 1976.
1. The Core Meaning
The term "Caveat" comes from Latin, meaning "let him beware." In a legal context, it acts as a "warning" to the court.
Purpose: To prevent the court from passing an ex-parte order (an order passed in the absence of one party).
Principle: It is based on the principle of Audi Alteram Partem—no person shall be condemned unheard.
2. Who Can File a Caveat?
According to Section 148A(1), a caveat can be filed by:
Any person claiming a right to appear before the court.
This applies if an application has already been made or is expected to be made in a suit or proceeding.
The person filing the caveat is called the Caveator, and the person expected to file the case is the Caveatee.
3. Key Duties and Procedures
Once a caveat is lodged, the law imposes specific duties on three parties:
Party Duty
The Caveator Must serve a notice of the caveat to the "Caveatee" (the person expected to file the case) via registered post.
The Court Must serve a notice to the Caveator if an application is filed, ensuring they are informed of the hearing.
The Applicant Once notified of the caveat, the applicant must provide the Caveator (at the Caveator's expense) with a copy of the application and all supporting documents.
4. Validity and Duration
A caveat does not stay active forever.
90 Days: Under Section 148A(5), a caveat remains in force for 90 days from the date it was lodged.
Renewal: If the expected application is not filed within those 90 days, the caveat expires. To remain protected, the Caveator must file a fresh caveat.
5. Why is it Important?
Protection against Injunctions: It is most commonly used to prevent the court from granting sudden stay orders or interim injunctions in property or commercial disputes.
Saves Costs: It prevents the need for "setting aside" an ex-parte order later, which saves time and legal fees.
Transparency: It forces the opposing party to share their case documents immediately.
Note: A caveat can be filed in any Civil Court of original jurisdiction, Appellate Courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. However, it applies only to civil proceedings and not to criminal cases.
Recent judicial interpretations of Section 148A of the CPC have clarified that while a caveat is a shield for the caveator, it is not an absolute barrier that can be used to stall the court's jurisdiction indefinitely.
Here are the key recent and significant case laws categorizing the various legal dimensions of a caveat:
1. Mandatory Compliance vs. Court's Power
Mamta Devi v. Rakesh Kumar Yadav (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2024) The court clarified the "sequential" nature of Section 148A. It held that the duties of the Court (Sub-section 3) only come into play once the Caveator has fulfilled their mandatory duty under Sub-section 2 (serving notice to the opposing party). If the caveator fails to prove they served the notice, they cannot later complain that the court passed an order without hearing them.
2. Legal Status of Orders Passed Ignoring a Caveat
Reserve Bank of India Employees Association v. RBI (Andhra Pradesh High Court) This is a seminal case often cited in recent years. The court held that an order passed without hearing a caveator (despite a valid caveat) is not a nullity (completely void) but is irregular and illegal. This means the order exists until it is challenged and set aside by the aggrieved caveator.
C. Seethaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Contrasting slightly with the above, this case emphasizes that once a caveat is lodged, the court's power to pass an ex-parte order is curtailed. Passing such an order without notice to the caveator is considered a violation of statutory duty.
3. Maintainability in Writ Jurisdictions
K.P. Harikrishnan v. C.K. Jacob (Kerala High Court) The court ruled that a Caveat under Section 148A of the CPC is generally not maintainable in Writ Petitions (Article 226) because the CPC does not strictly apply to constitutional remedies unless the specific High Court Rules provide for it. Most High Courts now have their own rules for "Writ Caveats."
4. Right of "Proper Parties"
Common Law Principle (Reiterated in 2023-2025 rulings) Recent interpretations confirm that you don't have to be a "Necessary Party" (someone without whom the case cannot be decided) to file a caveat. Even a "Proper Party"—someone whose presence would help the court adjudicate more effectively—has the right to lodge a caveat if their interests are affected.
5. Limitation and Expiry
Section 148A(5) Interpretations Courts have recently been strict about the 90-day expiry. If an interim order is passed on the 91st day and the caveator didn't renew the filing, they cannot claim a right to be heard. The "90-day" clock is absolute and cannot be extended via Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
