Supreme Court Criticizes Probe Agencies' Selective Approach in Land Grab Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (31 August 2026) warned that investigative agencies often move slowly when probing people in power but act quickly against ordinary citizens. A three‑judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant delivered the remarks while hearing a petition filed by Sumit Roy, the personal assistant to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, in the Salboni land‑grabbing case.

In the earlier hearing the Court had stayed Roy’s arrest, ordering him to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Roy, said the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had focused largely on his family and the party’s activities. “Certainly, at some point, they should get to the offence I have been accused of…,” Sankaranarayanan submitted. The Court noted that the ED’s questioning had not yet addressed the alleged offence.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, explained that the agency had confronted Roy and that he had deposited ₹2 crore. “Our apprehension is that this deposit in the bank is only a fraction, the tip of the iceberg,” Mehta said. He urged the Court to allow custodial interrogation, citing that about ₹30 crore had been transferred to Leaps and Bounds Private Limited, a firm linked to Banerjee, which is under ED investigation for financial irregularities.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a member of the bench, remarked that “lesser said would be better” in the ED’s probe into Leaps and Bounds. He echoed concerns raised by judges of the Calcutta High Court, who expressed “despair” over the investigation’s sluggish pace and the lack of intensity in interrogating those involved. “In the ordinary prism of criminal investigation, you do not bat an eyelid to pass appropriate directions to enable the investigating agencies,” Bagchi said. “But an additional layer comes in when agencies investigate authorities in respect of overlapping proceeds of crime investigations. They drag their feet on custodial investigation at certain times, and activate themselves at other times.” He concluded that the clarity and bonafides of the investigating agency suffer as a result.

Chief Justice Kant directed the ED to produce video and audio records of the questioning of Roy to verify whether he was asked about his alleged involvement in the land‑grab case. “Did you ask him who gave him the money; where did he get it; who authorised him; how much was received… Where are those questions? Show us the records,” the Chief Justice asked. The next hearing is scheduled for 7 September.

Earlier, on 3 August, the Calcutta High Court rejected Roy’s anticipatory bail plea in the Salboni government land fraud case, which is being investigated by the Salboni Police. The case was registered under criminal provisions relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy. The West Bengal government opposed the grant of relief, arguing that custodial questioning was necessary for the investigation and that previous attempts to question Roy had been thwarted by the former Chief Minister.

The Supreme Court’s remarks underscore a perceived double standard in law enforcement: powerful political figures and their associates often face delayed investigations, whereas ordinary citizens are subject to swift action. The Court’s demand for documentary evidence from the ED signals a push for greater transparency and accountability in the probe into the Salboni land‑grabbing case and the related financial irregularities involving Leaps and Bounds Private Limited. The outcome of the next hearing will likely determine whether the ED’s investigative procedures meet the Court’s expectations for thoroughness and impartiality.

#SupremeCourt #ProbeAgencies #LandGrabbing #Salboni #ED #TrinamoolCongress #AbhishekBanerjee #MamataBanerjee