Calcutta High Court Allows TMC To Incur Daily Expenses From Three Frozen Bank Accounts Under Supervision Of Special Officer

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday permitted the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) to temporarily operate three of its frozen bank accounts for day-to-day functioning under the supervision of a Special Officer, observing that it was unable, at the interim stage, to find sufficient material justifying the "abrupt" freezing of the accounts within a day of registration of the FIR.

Justice Saugata  Bhattacharya appointed former Calcutta High Court judge Justice Subrata Talukdar as Special Officer to regulate the operation of the accounts till September 30, 2026. The Court clarified that the arrangement would neither determine nor imply recognition of any faction as the "real" Trinamool Congress, an issue pending before the Election Commission of India.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the TMC, contended that the debit freeze had virtually paralysed the functioning of a recognised political party. He argued that the action violated Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(d) and 300A of the Constitution and undermined the principle of a level playing field in a democracy.

"If you can cripple a political party like this then it erodes a level playing field," Singhvi submitted. Referring to the speed with which the action had been taken, he remarked, "I wish things in this country worked so fast in all cases. A complaint, FIR and bank freezing in two days."

Singhvi argued that the complaint was "vague" and devoid of any specific allegations linking the accounts to proceeds of crime. He further submitted that all funds received by the political party were regulated under the Election Commission's framework and the Income Tax Act.

During the hearing, the Court repeatedly questioned the State over the basis on which the accounts had been frozen within 24 hours of the complaint.

"As I expressed my mind, this complaint was lodged on 18th and the accounts were seized on 19th. As if the complaint was lodged only to seize these accounts. What was the material on the 18th?" the Court asked.

The Court also remarked, "Why everything is happening with lightning speed? When a poor citizen approaches a police station, they are not active. But when a complaint is lodged so quickly the account was frozen?"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State police, defended the action by relying upon Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He submitted that the provision empowered the police to seize property during investigation and that statements had been recorded even before the FIR was lodged.

Mehta argued that the freezing of the accounts was necessary to prevent the alleged proceeds of crime from being dissipated and submitted that permitting one faction to operate the accounts could be construed as recognising it as the legitimate political party.

"The difficulty is that if this Court takes a decision, the issue of who the funds go to, a particular faction would operate the account. That would give recognition of someone to be the real TMC," Mehta argued.

The Court, however, clarified that any interim arrangement would not amount to recognising either faction.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the de facto complainant claimed that his clients represented the "real" Trinamool Congress and sought protection of the accounts. The Court declined to expand the scope of the proceedings.

"You were a member of TMC, you fought the election and then when a new faction came you lodged the complaint. The timing... your conduct doesn't inspire confidence at this stage," the Court observed.

It further remarked that the complainant had contested the election as a TMC candidate using funds from the same accounts before raising allegations against them.

Dictating the operative portion of the order, the Court observed that the complaint appeared to be "omnibus in nature" and did not identify any specific transaction showing unlawful enrichment of the accounts.

"FIR was registered on 18th June and hurriedly on 19th June the accounts were frozen. At this stage, the Court is unable to find any material to show basis for taking such abrupt steps," the Court recorded.

The Court further observed that before the election results were declared, the complainant had utilised funds from the very accounts while contesting as a TMC candidate and subsequently lodged the complaint after joining another faction.

Holding that it was unnecessary at this stage to decide which faction represented the genuine Trinamool Congress, the Court appointed Justice (Retd.) Subrata Talukdar as Special Officer.

Under the arrangement, any two authorised signatories of the three bank accounts will be permitted to present cheques before the Special Officer, who will countersign them before presentation to the bank.

The Court directed that withdrawals would be restricted to the party's day-to-day functioning as detailed in its supplementary affidavit. It clarified that no major expenditure would be permitted without the Special Officer's approval, although legal expenses would remain permissible.

The police authorities were allowed to continue the investigation, while the concerned banks were directed to preserve all account records and furnish them to the investigating agency whenever required.

The interim arrangement will remain in force till September 30, 2026. The matter has been directed to be listed on September 21, 2026. The Court also clarified that if the Election Commission subsequently recognises any faction of the party, the concerned parties would be at liberty to seek modification of the interim order.