New Delhi | The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised serious questions over the Enforcement Directorate’s handling of the high-profile ₹2,700 crore West Bengal coal scam case, asking why the agency failed to take action when the main accused, Anup Majee, was already in the custody of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court’s sharp observations have once again triggered debate over coordination and efficiency among investigative agencies in major economic offence cases.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. The court was considering an Enforcement Directorate plea challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Anup Majee by the Delhi High Court. ED has alleged that Majee was the key operator behind the illegal coal excavation and smuggling network that allegedly caused massive losses to public resources.
Registration Begins for FutureCrime Summit 2026, India’s Largest Cybercrime Conference
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the case involved an organised economic crime in which national assets had been extensively plundered. He told the court that the accused had remained untraceable for a significant period and began cooperating with investigators only after receiving legal protection from the court. ED maintained that custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary considering the gravity and scale of the alleged scam.
However, the Supreme Court did not immediately agree with the agency’s submissions. The bench questioned why ED had not acted earlier if the accused had already been available in CBI custody. The court remarked that the agency had failed to demonstrate sufficient seriousness over the past several months and was now suddenly seeking cancellation of bail. Legal observers believe the court’s comments reflect growing judicial scrutiny over delays and procedural lapses in high-profile investigations.
Appearing for Anup Majee, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave argued that his client had fully cooperated with the investigation and had appeared before ED officials on 23 occasions. The defence also submitted that since the accused had consistently participated in the probe, there was no justification for custodial interrogation. It was on similar grounds that the Delhi High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Majee in June 2025.
Despite its strong remarks, the Supreme Court did not dismiss the matter outright. The bench issued a notice to Anup Majee seeking his response to ED’s plea. The court also indicated that it may prefer expediting the trial rather than engaging in prolonged litigation over cancellation of bail. Legal experts say that if the apex court pushes for a fast-tracked trial, it could set an important precedent for the handling of large-scale economic offences and corruption cases.
The coal scam case has remained politically sensitive and has repeatedly drawn national attention. Earlier this year, ED had conducted raids at the Kolkata office of a political consultancy organisation in connection with the same investigation, sparking a major political controversy in the state. Investigators claim that illegal coal mining and transportation generated huge amounts of unaccounted money that was allegedly routed through shell entities, layered financial transactions and suspected laundering channels.
Financial crime experts say scams involving coal, mining and natural resources often extend far beyond simple revenue loss. Such cases typically involve complex networks including illegal excavation syndicates, political patronage, fake firms, hawala transactions and money laundering operations. This is one reason why multiple agencies such as CBI, ED and the Income Tax Department frequently conduct parallel investigations in these matters.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations have now shifted attention toward ED’s investigative strategy and the timeline of its actions. At the same time, the case has reignited broader concerns about whether India’s major investigative agencies require stronger coordination mechanisms and greater accountability while dealing with large-scale financial and corruption-related crimes.
