Supreme Court Refuses to Block ED Access to Jitendra Mehta’s Phone
In a significant legal development today, the Supreme Court of India refused to block the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from accessing data stored on the mobile phone of Jitendra Kumar Mehta, a key functionary associated with the Indian Political Action Committee (I-PAC). Mehta — who challenged the move as a violation of his fundamental right to privacy — had approached the top court seeking an interim order restraining the agency from examining his device. The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined to grant that relief, paving the way for the ED to proceed with its forensic examination.
Mehta’s phone was seized on January 8 during searches conducted by the ED at I-PAC’s office in Delhi as part of a broader investigation into alleged money-laundering and linked irregularities. Following the court’s order, the ED has summoned Mehta to appear for questioning at its headquarters on Friday.
Background of the Legal Fight
When the ED conducted its search earlier this month, it confiscated Mehta’s mobile phone along with other digital devices from various premises connected to the political consultancy firm. In response, Mehta filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the extraction and analysis of his phone data, arguing that such access without safeguards would breach his right to privacy — a right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, representing Mehta, urged the court to restrain the ED from unlocking and accessing the phone until the court had an opportunity to fully hear the case. Sundaram argued that personal devices often contain a mixture of private and professional information, and unrestricted access without robust safeguards could lead to “irreversible intrusion” into personal digital data.
Key Arguments by Mehta
- Access to phone data violates the fundamental right to privacy.
- Personal devices contain both private and professional information.
- Unrestricted forensic access may cause irreversible intrusion.
Supreme Court’s Reaction and Ruling
The Supreme Court bench was not persuaded by the privacy arguments. At one point during the hearing, the bench asked counsel for Mehta, “Why are you so afraid?”, signaling scepticism about the basis for seeking protection against the ED’s investigative step. The court affirmed that it is fully capable of ensuring protection of individuals who are genuinely innocent and that no presumption of guilt should be drawn at this early stage.
Ultimately, the bench refused to grant an interim stay on the ED’s access to the phone data. Instead, it directed the investigation to proceed while reserving its right to examine the broader constitutional issues raised. This means the ED can now put the phone through forensic extraction and review its contents as part of its ongoing probe.
Summary of the Court’s Order
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Relief Sought | Interim stay on ED accessing phone data |
| Court’s Decision | Relief declined |
| Result | ED allowed to conduct forensic examination |
The Broader Investigation: I-PAC and Coal Scam Allegations
The dispute over the mobile phone is only one aspect of a much larger and highly contentious money-laundering investigation that has entwined the ED, I-PAC, and political battles in West Bengal and beyond.
According to complaints and FIRs filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and ED, the probe traces back to an alleged coal scam in West Bengal, where criminal syndicates are accused of illegal excavation, theft, and sale of coal from Eastern Coalfields Limited. The proceeds of this alleged crime — running into hundreds of crores — are claimed to have been channelled through complex networks involving hawala operators and intermediaries. A portion of these proceeds, approximately Rs 20 crore, was reportedly funnelled to I-PAC operations in Goa via multiple intermediaries, with Mehta identified as one of the financial links in that chain.
As part of its probe, the ED has alleged that Mehta, who is also said to run a non-banking financial company, helped move proceeds of crime through informal channels. The agency claims his involvement extends to facilitating transfers linked to I-PAC activities, prompting it to seek access to digital evidence.
Allegations at a Glance
- Illegal coal mining and sale in West Bengal.
- Proceeds routed through hawala operators.
- Approximately Rs 20 crore allegedly sent to I-PAC.
- Mehta identified as a financial link.
Political and Legal Fallout
The ED’s aggressive enforcement actions have triggered political tensions, especially in West Bengal. When the ED raided the I-PAC office in Kolkata, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally attended the site, leading to clashes between state police and federal investigators. The agency later alleged that state authorities and party members took away documents and devices in a way that impeded the investigation, which drew significant public and judicial scrutiny.
Meanwhile, legal challenges related to these raids and evidence seizures have proliferated. Multiple petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court questioning the ED’s powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, especially concerning the seizure and forensic examination of personal electronic devices. Many of these cases have now been consolidated, and the apex court is set to more thoroughly examine the balance between investigative authority and individual rights in forthcoming hearings.
What Happens Next?
With today’s order, the Supreme Court has allowed the ED to proceed with analyzing the seized phone while Mehta prepares to appear before the agency. The larger constitutional questions — including the scope of privacy protection in digital investigations and the standards for accessing personal devices — are now lined up for broader judicial consideration. As this high-stakes legal and political saga unfolds, the Supreme Court will play a pivotal role in defining the contours of privacy rights in the digital age and the investigative powers of central agencies.
