The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the speed with which the bank accounts of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) were frozen following the registration of an FIR, observing that the complaint appeared "omnibus" and did not contain specific allegations. However, the Court declined to grant immediate interim relief, directing the bank to place before it the corpus of the frozen accounts and the investigation agency to furnish the materials collected during the investigation.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, hearing the matter, questioned whether the investigating agency had sufficient material to justify the freezing of the accounts within a day of the FIR being registered.

"It is bothering us how this happened in hot haste and what material the agency had," the Bench remarked.

The petition challenges the freezing of several bank accounts belonging to the TMC in connection with an investigation initiated on the basis of a complaint alleging financial irregularities.

Appearing for the TMC, Senior Advocate Kishore Datta, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi assisted by Advocate Nizam Pasha, argued that the accounts had been frozen solely on the basis of vague allegations and without any legal justification. Datta contended that the police had initially frozen three accounts before extending the freeze to five more, effectively bringing all financial transactions of the political party to a standstill.

He argued that the FIR itself was founded merely on "reasonable suspicion" and questioned the invocation of organised crime provisions, submitting that the statutory definition requires monetary gain through unlawful activities.

The Bench, however, observed that it would not examine the correctness of the allegations at the interim stage.

"When the issue is hazy, it will not be proper for us to look into the veracity of charges. In-depth analysis of the allegations cannot be examined now," the Court observed.

The Court clarified that the immediate issue before it was not the validity of the criminal case but whether the continued debit freeze of the bank accounts was justified during the pendency of the investigation.

Datta argued that Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers the police to seize property found under suspicious circumstances, does not authorise the issuance of prohibitory orders freezing bank accounts. According to him, freezing an account is distinct from seizure.

"If allegations are that proceeds of crime are deposited in the account then what can the agency do?" the Court asked.

When Datta maintained that the agency could seize property but not freeze bank accounts under Section 106, the Court responded:

"If the allegation is on these accounts and these accounts are closed, how will the probe go on? Can the Court cripple the agency?"

During the hearing, the Bench floated the possibility of permitting operation of the accounts under the supervision of retired judges acting as special officers until the dispute was finally decided.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State Police, opposed any interim arrangement and sought time to place the investigation records before the Court.

He submitted that the case involved a comprehensive investigation and asserted that the agency had collected material demonstrating that funds were allegedly being siphoned off.

"We will place on record materials that may shock the Court's conscience," Mehta submitted, requesting that any interim order be deferred for a few days.

Dr. Singhvi, pressing for interim protection, argued that freezing the accounts had the effect of paralysing the functioning of a recognised political party.

He submitted that the complaint was "delightfully vague", contained no specific facts and could not have justified either the registration of the FIR or the blanket freezing of the party's accounts.

Emphasising the constitutional implications, Singhvi argued that a political party's ability to function was integral to democratic governance.

"When a level playing field and a political party under Articles 14 and 19 are the basis of democracy, can a friendly police force paralyse a running political party by freezing its funds?" Singhvi argued.

The Court, however, indicated that it was not inclined to enter into the broader political issues at the interim stage and was primarily concerned with examining the material that led to the freezing order.

The de facto complainant, represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, raised objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that rival factions were claiming to represent the TMC and that the question of authorised office-bearers would ultimately be decided by the Election Commission of India.

The Bench, however, observed that the complaint itself did not contain allegations relating to rival claims over party leadership.

"Your complaint is not inspiring any confidence in our minds. There is no specific allegation or date or names. Foundation of the criminal case is not very strong," the Court remarked.

The Bench also refused to permit the scope of the proceedings to be expanded beyond the contents of the complaint.

Ultimately, while declining to pass any interim order permitting operation of the accounts, the Court directed the investigating agency to place before it the corpus of all the frozen accounts as well as the material gathered during the investigation.

Accepting the Solicitor General's request for time, the Bench listed the matter for further hearing on July 8, when it will consider the investigation records before deciding the prayer for interim relief.

Appearance: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv., Nizam Pasha, Adv., Arko Kumar Nag, Adv., Agnish Basu, Adv., Vipul Vedant, Adv, Mushtaq Salim, Adv, Aditya Roy, Adv, Siddharth Seem, Adv, Gaurav Bose, Adv, Awstika Das, Adv

Case No: WPA/14081/2026

Case: ALL INDIA TRINAMOOL CONGRESS AND ANR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.