Additional solicitor general of India S.V. Raju told Calcutta High Court on Wednesday that Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee -- and not the Enforcement Directorate -- had seized documents and electronic devices during the raids carried out at the office of I-PAC and the residence of its director Pratik Jain.

“The records, if any, were seized by Mamata Banerjee. Therefore, this prayer for returning the assets which are seized is not maintainable unless Mamata Banerjee is made a party,” ASG Raju, appearing on behalf of the ED, told the court of Justice Suvra Ghosh.

“That is our case. Mamata Banerjee physically seized all the records and the digital devices from the premises. She has taken possession of them illegally and committed an offence.”

Raju added: “Unless Mamata Banerjee is made a party who is in illegal possession of these articles, these prayers and this writ petition is not maintainable. In the absence of Mamata Banerjee being made a party and the absence of the DG of police and the commissioner who have abated the offence, these prayers cannot be granted because no record has been seized by the ED. All records have been seized illegally by Mamata Banerjee and her cohorts.”

The Trinamool Congress had moved the Calcutta High Court for protection of the “data” seized by the ED during January 8 raids carried out by the central agency.

“We are not a party before the Supreme Court. There was a search, our privacy may be maintained. We live in a constitutional democracy. We want our political data to be saved. There is a right to privacy. Political ideology is protected,” senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy appearing on behalf of the Trinamool said in her argument.

“We only request that our political data be protected and not released in the media and not used in political fashion.”

On the morning of January 8, raids in connection with a coal-smuggling case were carried out in multiple locations in Delhi and Calcutta, of which two locations were the Loudon Street residence of Jain and the I-PAC office in Salt Lake Sector-V Kolkata.

The Bengal chief minister was seen carrying a green file and electronic devices after emerging from the building where Jain’s third floor flat is situated. Later on she went to the I-PAC office and spent close to 45 minutes, during which stacks of files, the contents of which are unknown, were loaded into her vehicle allegedly by her security personnel.

Addressing the media, in both the sites, while the ED officials were still inside the premises, Mamata had accused Union home minister Amit Shah of using the central probe agency to steal data related to the probable candidates for the impending state Assembly polls, election strategy and SIR related data.

A day after the raids, Mamata had said in a public meeting: “I have done nothing wrong. You were trying to steal all the data from my office.”

“What was the sensitive data seized? Nothing. Petition is to be rejected on the grounds of the vice of vagueness,” Raju argued.

Raju also doubted the credibility of Shubhasish Chakraborty who had signed the petition on behalf of the Trinamool Congress. Guruswamy informed the bench the authorisation letter was provided in the vakalatnama.

The ED had moved the Calcutta High Court and later the Supreme Court against Mamata, the state director general of police Rajeev Kumar and Kolkata Police chief Manoj Verma.

In two petitions filed before the Supreme Court on Monday, the ED stated, that “protectors of law became party to a serious cognisable offence” as they “intimidated and threatened ED officers and snatched files and electronic evidence containing incriminating material,” and sought direction from the apex court in filing FIR against Mamata and the two top cops from the state and the city.

Guruswamy appealed to Justice Ghosh, the ASG’s statement of the ED not seizing any documents to be taken on record.

Hearing both the sides Justice Ghosh recorded: “Only prayer of the petitioner is for preservation of the political, confidential data and protection of the same from being circulated and divulged. The learned counsel (for the central agency) submitted on instruction nothing whatsoever was seized from the premises. Copies of panchnamas drawn up at alleged places of search and seizure demonstrate that nothing was seized from either office of I-PAC or the director (of I-PAC). In view of the submission, nothing remains, the application was disposed of.”

Hearing on the plea filed by the ED before the Calcutta High Court as the special leave petition filed by the agency before the apex court is pending.

The apex court is likely to hear ED’s plea on Thursday.