The Supreme Court disposed of special leave petitions arising out of a Calcutta High Court interim order regarding the operation of debit-frozen bank accounts belonging to the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC).

The Court observed that the High Court’s interim arrangement, permitting routine operational expenses under the supervision of a court-appointed Special Officer, passed a balanced order that adequately protected the interests of all parties without stalling party administration.

Declining to enter into the merits of the case while the main writ petitions remain pending before the High Court, the Bench granted liberty to the parties, including complainant MLA Biswanath Das, to raise their specific objections before the Special Officer.

On the last date of hearing, the Court had asked the Enforcement Directorate whether some amount can be released from the frozen bank accounts.

The ED froze the three bank accounts, with balances totalling Rs 440.42 crore, in connection with its money laundering probe arising out of an FIR lodged by the West Bengal Police over alleged dishonest financial transactions, unlawful collection of money and routing of suspected funds through certain party accounts.

The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale ordered, "We have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties...A limited notice was issued in SLP No. 1133 of 2026, which is recorded herein...Upon perusing the records, including the impugned order which is the subject matter of SLP No. 14649 of 2026, we are satisfied that the High Court in Writ Petition No. 14081 of 2026 has passed a balanced order...We are also conscious of the fact that the main writ petitions are pending consideration as W.P.(A) No. 14081 of 2026 and W.P.(A) No. 16258 of 2026. Any discussion on merits at this stage would have a bearing on the pending writ petitions...Since we are satisfied that the interim order passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 14081 of 2026 sufficiently takes care of the interests of the parties, we are not inclined to entertain both these matters...However, we grant liberty to the petitioner in SLP No. 14691 of 2026 to put forth his objections before the Special Officer."


Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for the Petitioner, ASG SV Raju appeared for the ED and Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar appeared for the complainant MLA Biswanath Das.

The Court was hearing a Special Leave To Appeal filed by All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) challenging an interim order of the Calcutta High Court that refused to permit the political party to operate three bank accounts, debit-frozen by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

Sibal submitted that while the party was agreeable to meeting its routine expenditures, the respondents contended that such expenses ought to be met from other unencumbered accounts allegedly holding ₹164 crore. Clarifying the status of these accounts through additional affidavits, Sibal informed the Bench that out of 36 identified accounts, 31 were fixed deposits and only five were active bank accounts.

He pointed out that encashing the fixed deposits would automatically route the funds into the primary accounts that stood frozen. He further added that four bank accounts were separately frozen pursuant to orders issued by the cyber crime police station.

Sibal submitted that while the alleged proceeds of crime in the matter amounted to ₹60 crore, the total funds attachments and freezes across the accounts exceeded ₹400 crore. He argued that the blanket freezing of all accounts severely impaired the party's ability to discharge basic financial obligations, including salary disbursements for approximately 250 employees amounting to ₹53,23,000 for the current month.

He further detailed liabilities toward vendor invoices for election-related activities, contractual obligations for security and office personnel, and monthly administrative expenditures of nearly ₹1 crore across 17 party offices. Sibal added that recipient accounts had also been frozen by the agency.

Sibal also highlighted that a Single Judge Bench of the High Court had previously directed that day-to-day expenditures be incurred through three specific bank accounts under the supervision of a former High Court judge serving as a Special Officer until September 30.

He alleged that the Enforcement Directorate deliberately issued the freezing orders for these accounts after the High Court indicated its inclination to pass the interim order permitting their operation.

Appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju submitted before the Bench that the primary concern of the Court was to ascertain whether the petitioner was permitted to operate accounts for day-to-day expenditures. Referring to the High Court’s order dated July 9, the learned ASG submitted that three bank accounts remained unencumbered for the purpose of meeting routine operational expenses.

Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the complainant MLA Biswanath Das in another SLP, submitted before the Bench that Accounts No. 2 and 5—as detailed in the chart submitted by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal—remained unencumbered. It was noted that the complainant MLA had separately preferred a plea challenging the High Court’s order dated July 9, which had permitted the operation of three bank accounts for day-to-day expenditure under the supervision of a former High Court judge.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that Account No. 5 was designated specifically for the party's newspaper publication and could not be lawfully utilized to discharge administrative liabilities such as staff salaries or office rents. She further clarified that Account No. 2 pertained to membership dues held in trust for member welfare activities.

Guruswamy argued that diverting funds from a newspaper account or a member welfare fund to pay general administrative salaries would expose the party to allegations of financial laundering by the Enforcement Directorate and create severe governance issues.

Parameshwar further contended that the complainant faction claimed to be the authentic Trinamool Congress without having defected to another political entity. On this premise, he submitted that one specific faction could not be exclusively permitted to operate the bank accounts through the interim mechanism formulated by the High Court.

Parameshwar submitted that the core question regarding the legitimate identity and recognition of the All India Trinamool Congress remained pending for adjudication before the Election Commission of India. He questioned the locus of the opposing group to style itself as the authentic party entity during the pendency of the dispute. Parameshwar argued that although this issue was specifically raised before the High Court, the impugned interim arrangement effectively granted an upper hand to the rival faction, thereby causing serious prejudice to his clients and excluding them from party affairs.

Addressing the liabilities cited by the petitioner, Parameshwar submitted that the airline agency to which Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had referenced outstanding dues was itself under investigation for suspicious transactions.

He further brought to the Bench's attention that three specific accounts had been frozen by the state government, noting that a single account among them had received inflows amounting to ₹360 crore within 20 days following an electoral defeat. He urged the Court to limit operational permission to a single bank account and argued that the petitioner had failed to fully disclose to the Court the total number of accounts held by the party or the complete sum of money available across them.

To this, Justice Sundresh said, "Both the orders are only interim orders. Our intention was to make sure that nothing should be stalled. This interim order takes care of it. Only other issue is whether something more needs to be done...For day-to-day administration funds are there...We will not say anything. We will dispose of both the matters and leave it to the discretion of the Special Officer appointed by the High Court. Whatever you want to say, say it in the main petition..."

In its order, the High Court had noted that other than the three accounts under "debit-freeze" by the ED, there were 36 other accounts in the party's name, and an amount of Rs 164 crore was lying there.

The Banerjee-led faction of the TMC had moved the High Court challenging the initiation of ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report), an equivalent of an FIR, proceedings by the ED.

According to the officials, the ED's preliminary investigation found that around Rs 160 crore was transferred from the TMC's bank accounts to Carewell Aviation India Pvt Ltd and its related entity between April 2023 and June 2026. The company is alleged to have further routed Rs 82.96 crore (between 2023 and 2026) to another newly incorporated entity.

It was alleged that a "significant" amount was transferred to this entity. Out of this, Rs 112 crore was used for purchasing an Embraer Legacy 600 business jet and an AgustaWestland 109SP helicopter, the officials had said.

Cause Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. Union of India & Ors. [SLP(Crl) No. 13322/2026] and Biswanath Das v. All India Trinamool Congress [SLP(Crl) No. 14691/2026]

Tags: