Supreme Court declines TMC plea over frozen accounts
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to intervene in the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress faction’s challenge over four debit-frozen bank accounts holding about Rs 804 crore, leaving the dispute before the Calcutta High Court and asking it to accelerate the hearing.
A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and P. B. Varale refused to interfere with the High Court’s interim order denying the faction permission to operate the accounts. The judges expressly refrained from examining the merits of the dispute and declined to exercise the Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
“We refrain from going into the merits. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136. We request high court to expedite the hearing,” the bench said.
The ruling concerns four accounts maintained with Indian Bank that were debit-frozen following a criminal investigation by the West Bengal Police. The investigation arose from a complaint lodged by TMC MLA Biswanath Das amid an internal dispute over control of the party.
The Supreme Court also took note of proceedings before the Election Commission, which has passed an interim order freezing the TMC’s name and election symbol while rival claims over the party remain unresolved. The bench observed that the larger question of entitlement to the money in the accounts could not be separated from the dispute over which faction is entitled to represent the party.
The amount involved in Thursday’s proceedings is about Rs 804 crore, not Rs 440 crore. The Rs 440.42 crore figure relates to a separate set of three HDFC Bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate in July as part of a money-laundering investigation. The Supreme Court proceedings on Thursday concerned four Indian Bank accounts frozen by the state police.
The Calcutta High Court had on August 27 declined to grant interim permission to the Banerjee-led faction to operate the four accounts. It held that granting the requested relief at that stage would undermine an earlier arrangement under which the party was permitted to meet essential day-to-day expenditure.
Before the Supreme Court, the faction challenged the refusal of interim relief and questioned the basis on which the police had frozen the accounts. Its case included objections to alleged procedural deficiencies in the first information reports underpinning the action.
The party told the court that the restrictions had severely affected its operations. During proceedings on the frozen accounts, it submitted that it required at least Rs 12.15 crore a month to sustain organisational activities. The opposing side maintained that an existing court-supervised arrangement already allowed necessary routine expenditure.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in the matter, drew the court’s attention to the continuing internal party dispute and the criminal investigation. The complainant’s counsel also argued that the earlier arrangement for ordinary expenses meant additional interim access to the accounts was unnecessary while the substantive issues remained before the High Court.
The dispute over the four accounts is distinct from litigation concerning the three HDFC accounts containing Rs 440.42 crore. Those accounts were initially subjected to restrictions connected with a state police case before the Enforcement Directorate separately froze them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Enforcement Directorate has said its investigation concerns alleged transfers of about Rs 160 crore from TMC accounts to Carewell Aviation India Pvt Ltd and a related entity between April 2023 and June 2026. Investigators have alleged that funds were routed through linked transactions involving the acquisition and use of an Embraer Legacy 600 business jet and an AgustaWestland 109SP helicopter. Those allegations remain under investigation.
The High Court had earlier created a mechanism allowing limited expenditure from certain party accounts under the supervision of retired High Court judge Justice Subrata Talukdar. The arrangement required designated signatories to submit cheques for essential administrative and legal expenses for verification and countersignature.
A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and P. B. Varale refused to interfere with the High Court’s interim order denying the faction permission to operate the accounts. The judges expressly refrained from examining the merits of the dispute and declined to exercise the Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
“We refrain from going into the merits. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136. We request high court to expedite the hearing,” the bench said.
The ruling concerns four accounts maintained with Indian Bank that were debit-frozen following a criminal investigation by the West Bengal Police. The investigation arose from a complaint lodged by TMC MLA Biswanath Das amid an internal dispute over control of the party.
The Supreme Court also took note of proceedings before the Election Commission, which has passed an interim order freezing the TMC’s name and election symbol while rival claims over the party remain unresolved. The bench observed that the larger question of entitlement to the money in the accounts could not be separated from the dispute over which faction is entitled to represent the party.
The amount involved in Thursday’s proceedings is about Rs 804 crore, not Rs 440 crore. The Rs 440.42 crore figure relates to a separate set of three HDFC Bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate in July as part of a money-laundering investigation. The Supreme Court proceedings on Thursday concerned four Indian Bank accounts frozen by the state police.
The Calcutta High Court had on August 27 declined to grant interim permission to the Banerjee-led faction to operate the four accounts. It held that granting the requested relief at that stage would undermine an earlier arrangement under which the party was permitted to meet essential day-to-day expenditure.
Before the Supreme Court, the faction challenged the refusal of interim relief and questioned the basis on which the police had frozen the accounts. Its case included objections to alleged procedural deficiencies in the first information reports underpinning the action.
The party told the court that the restrictions had severely affected its operations. During proceedings on the frozen accounts, it submitted that it required at least Rs 12.15 crore a month to sustain organisational activities. The opposing side maintained that an existing court-supervised arrangement already allowed necessary routine expenditure.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing in the matter, drew the court’s attention to the continuing internal party dispute and the criminal investigation. The complainant’s counsel also argued that the earlier arrangement for ordinary expenses meant additional interim access to the accounts was unnecessary while the substantive issues remained before the High Court.
The dispute over the four accounts is distinct from litigation concerning the three HDFC accounts containing Rs 440.42 crore. Those accounts were initially subjected to restrictions connected with a state police case before the Enforcement Directorate separately froze them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Enforcement Directorate has said its investigation concerns alleged transfers of about Rs 160 crore from TMC accounts to Carewell Aviation India Pvt Ltd and a related entity between April 2023 and June 2026. Investigators have alleged that funds were routed through linked transactions involving the acquisition and use of an Embraer Legacy 600 business jet and an AgustaWestland 109SP helicopter. Those allegations remain under investigation.
The High Court had earlier created a mechanism allowing limited expenditure from certain party accounts under the supervision of retired High Court judge Justice Subrata Talukdar. The arrangement required designated signatories to submit cheques for essential administrative and legal expenses for verification and countersignature.