The Calcutta High Court has declined to pass any further interim order in a writ petition filed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) challenging the freezing of four additional bank accounts by the State police's Cyber Cell, observing that its earlier order dated 9th July, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, had already permitted the party to meet its day-to-day expenses through a Special Officer.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the TMC, informed the Court that four more bank accounts of the political party had been frozen by the State police on July 7 in connection with the same FIR.

“Please go through the FIR, it's the same FIR for all the freezing,” Guruswamy submitted.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, however, pointed out that he had already passed an order on July 9 appointing a Special Officer to facilitate the party's day-to-day expenditure, while making it clear that the TMC would not otherwise be permitted to operate its bank accounts in their entirety.

The Court observed that, in view of the earlier order, “no further order” was required merely because additional accounts had subsequently been frozen.

Guruswamy submitted that the July 9 order protected the party's salaries and rent and that the Special Officer would assess such expenditure. However, she argued that a political party had other constitutionally protected expenses, including expenditure required for holding rallies and other political activities.

The Court responded that the best outcome would be for all the accounts to function so that the party could meet its expenditure, but reiterated that it had consciously restricted the operation of the accounts under its earlier interim order.

“If I pass a further order, then my previous order will be faulted,” the Court observed.

The Bench further asked what would remain for final adjudication if the Court were to permit the TMC to operate its bank accounts without restriction at the interim stage.

Guruswamy argued that the FIR itself was “ridiculous” and contended that it sought to implicate the former Chief Minister in an organised crime case. She also submitted that the political situation in West Bengal required the opposition party to have access to funds beyond salaries and rent.

The Court, however, observed that the reason it had passed the earlier order was precisely to ensure that the political party survived while the proceedings continued.

Additional Advocate General Rajdeep Majumdar appearing for the State opposed any further relief and referred to the investigation material, alleging that large amounts of cash were involved.

The State submitted that the investigation had revealed approximately ₹7 crore in cash and that another ₹10 crore cash deposit could be traced in relation to the accounts whose de-freezing was being sought.

The AAG further submitted that approximately ₹30 crore had been transferred from one of the accounts to Leaps and Bounds, which, according to the State, is a charge-sheeted company in the recruitment scam case.

The State also informed the Court that some of the accounts had been frozen by the Enforcement Directorate and that challenges concerning the earlier freezing had ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The Court was informed that there had been cross-SLPs before the Supreme Court involving the rival faction and the TMC faction.

The Bench noted that the Supreme Court had dealt with the matter and asked whether the TMC would consequently be permitted to operate its bank accounts in terms of the Supreme Court's order. The AAG answered in the affirmative.

The Court observed that, as a consequence, the TMC would be allowed to operate its bank accounts to the extent already covered by the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

Guruswamy nevertheless submitted that a political party could not survive merely on salaries and rent and required funds for activities such as rallies.

The Court reiterated that the Special Officer had to be permitted to function in accordance with its earlier order.

The Bench specifically questioned whether the four additional accounts had been debit-frozen by the State in connection with the same criminal case and sought details regarding the accounts, including those maintained with Indian Bank.

The Court ultimately held that its July 9 order sufficiently addressed the interim situation. “ In view of my 9th July order, no further orders are not needed,” the Court observed.

Guruswamy then stated that the TMC would exchange pleadings and argue the matter on merits, including its challenge to the FIR.

The Court observed that there was presently no scope for granting further interim relief in view of its earlier order.

While dictating the order, the Court recorded: “no further order need be passed on this writ petition for effecting interim measures.”

Case: All India Trinamool Congress v State of West Bengal