Supreme Court Dismisses Trinamool Congress Plea Against Freezing Of 4 Indian Bank Accounts, Requests HC To Expedite Hearing

The Court was hearing plea filed by All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) seeking permission to operate four accounts maintained with Indian Bank that were debit-frozen following a criminal investigation initiated by the West Bengal Police over a complaint filed by MLA Biswanath Das.

It may be noted that this case is different from the earlier matter where 3 HDFC bank accounts of the party were frozen.

Arguments

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Mamata faction, submitted that the freezing of the four Indian Bank accounts had paralysed the party's functioning. He pointed out that the party's audited accounts showed a minimum monthly expenditure of ₹12.15 crore for day-to-day operations (excluding political expenses). “If the police force of a state where the ruling party is opposed to me… send the police and they freeze all accounts, that's the best way of stopping political activities,” Singhvi argued. He added that the High Court order had mixed up the earlier three accounts with the present four, that by-elections were approaching, and that there was no judicial element of a magistrate involved in the freezing process.

When the Bench suggested that the court-appointed administrator could deal with these accounts as well, Singhvi stated that he could live with that as an ad-hoc arrangement for the time being. He further submitted that ₹12.15 crore per month was the minimum required to operate the third-largest party in the country and did not cover by-elections, legal fees or other expenses.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, opposing the plea for the State, submitted that the matter involved a different FIR and a factional dispute in which one side claimed to be the real Trinamool Congress. He informed the Supreme Court had earlier left the issue of which faction is the real party to be decided by the Election Commission of India. Mehta stated that a personal assistant associated with the party's faction had deposited ₹35 crore in cash into the accounts, that anticipatory bail applications had been rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court, and that the investigation was examining allegations of conversion of government land into private land and its subsequent sale during an earlier government.

Refuting the Solicitor's submissions, Singhvi said that these are not connected with the FIR, and said that they are made only to prejudice the Court.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the complainant, submitted that while day-to-day expenses had been permitted earlier, the petitioners were now seeking additional expenses as well. He referred to an Election Commission order dated 17 September 2026 which froze the party symbol till decision on who was the real Trinamool.

Singhvi countered that the Election Commission order dealt only with the party symbol and made no reference to the bank accounts. He clarified that the HDFC accounts were already under the supervision of the commissioner and that the present accounts were with Indian Bank. He objected to references to money-laundering and “huge cash” deposits, stating that such issues were not the subject matter of the present case and that the police had given no reasons for the freeze.

Court's Order

The Bench recorded that the earlier orders pertained to a different set of accounts. It noted the Solicitor General's submission regarding new allegations and observed that the Election Commission's order of 17 September 2026 had frozen the party symbol. Consequently, the larger issue of who is entitled to the amounts remains pending adjudication.

The Court refrained from going into the merits and stated that it was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. It requested the Calcutta High Court to expedite the hearing of the main case.

Background

The matter originated from a complaint filed by West Bengal MLA Biswanath Das before the Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police on June 18, 2026, alleging that funds generated through illegal activities, misuse of influence and dishonest financial dealings had been routed through the party's bank accounts. An FIR was registered on the same day. The AITC subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court, challenging the criminal prosecution and the freezing of its bank accounts.

In a writ petition concerning three HDFC Bank accounts frozen by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering investigation, the Calcutta High Court, on July 9, 2026, permitted the party to operate the accounts for day-to-day and monthly expenditure under the supervision of a court-appointed Special Officer.

On August 11, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with this interim arrangement, observing that it ensured the party's daily operations were not stalled. The Court left it open to the parties, including Biswanath Das, to raise their objections before the Special Officer and in the pending proceedings before the High Court.

Subsequently, the AITC filed another writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, challenging the debit-freezing of four accounts maintained with Indian Bank's Harish Mukherjee Road Branch. The party sought permission to operate these accounts, contending that there were lacunae in the criminal prosecution initiated on the basis of the June 18 complaint.

On August 27, 2026, the Calcutta High Court declined to grant any further interim relief for operating the four accounts. The State opposed the relief, submitting that the investigation was being conducted in accordance with law and should be allowed to reach its logical conclusion.

The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had already permitted the AITC to meet its day-to-day and monthly expenses through the Special Officer under the July 9 order, which the Supreme Court had declined to interfere with on August 11. Holding that no further interim measures were required at that stage, the High Court listed the matter for hearing on merits.