The Supreme Court on Monday (August 31, 2026) said probe agencies drag their feet when it comes to investigating or interrogating persons in authority, but do not bat an eyelid in cases dealing with ordinary persons.

The observations were made by a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while hearing a petition filed by Sumit Roy, the personal assistant to Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee, in connection with the Salboni land-grabbing case.

In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court stayed the arrest of Mr. Roy, directing him to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Mr. Roy, said his questioning by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) was mostly about his family and the political party’s activities.

“Certainly, at some point, they should get to the offence I have been accused of…” Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, said the ED has confronted Mr. Roy. The law officer said a deposit of ₹2 crore was made by Mr. Roy.

“Our apprehension is that this deposit in the bank is only a fraction, the tip of the iceberg,” Mr. Mehta said.

He strongly argued for custodial interrogation of Mr. Roy, pointing out that approximately ₹30 crore was transferred to Leaps and Bounds Private Limited, a company linked to Mr. Banerjee, who is the nephew of former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The company is under ED investigation for alleged financial irregularities.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, said the “lesser said would be better” in the case of ED probe into Leaps and Bounds.

Justice Bagchi said judges of the Calcutta High Court had expressed considerable “despair” at the slow pace of investigation and the lack of intensity in the interrogation of persons involved in the Leaps and Bounds case.

“In the ordinary prism of criminal investigation, you do not bat an eyelid to pass appropriate directions to enable the investigating agencies. 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,” Justice Bagchi said.

In the end, Justice Bagchi said clarity and bonafides of the investigating agency in question suffer.

In the current case, the Supreme Court directed the ED to produce video and audio records of the questioning of Mr. Roy to check whether he had been confronted with questions 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,” Chief Justice Kant addressed Mr. Mehta.

The next hearing is scheduled on September 7.

On August 3, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Mr. Roy in connection with the alleged government land fraud case being investigated by the Salboni Police.

The case was registered under penal provisions relating to cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents and criminal conspiracy.

The West Bengal government strongly opposed the grant of relief to Mr. Roy, saying his custodial questioning was necessary for the investigation. The State said previous attempts to question him in custody were thwarted by the former Chief Minister.