Calcutta High Court allows TMC to operate frozen bank accounts with restrictions

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday allowed the Trinamool Congress (TMC) to temporarily operate three of its frozen bank accounts for routine party expenses under the supervision of a Special Officer, observing that it was not satisfied with the material placed by the police to justify freezing the accounts.

A single bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharya appointed retired Calcutta High Court judge Justice Subrata Talukdar as Special Officer to oversee transactions until September 30.

Under the arrangement, withdrawals will be permitted only for the party's day-to-day functioning, as outlined in the supplementary affidavit filed by the TMC, and no other expenditure will be allowed.

The court directed that cheques must be signed by two authorised office-bearers of the Trinamool Congress and countersigned by the Special Officer before being presented to the bank.

While permitting limited transactions, the High Court said it was unable, at this interim stage, to find sufficient material supporting the police's decision to freeze the accounts shortly after the registration of an FIR.

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

The court also clarified that the interim arrangement would not amount to recognising any faction as the "real" Trinamool Congress, an issue that remains pending before the Election Commission.

According to a Live Law report, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the TMC, argued that the debit freeze had virtually paralysed the functioning of a recognised political party and violated its constitutional rights.

He contended that the complaint was vague, contained no specific allegations linking the accounts to proceeds of crime, and pointed out that all party funds were regulated under Election Commission norms and the Income Tax Act.

Questioning the speed of the police action, the court remarked that the accounts appeared to have been frozen within a day of the complaint. "As if the complaint was lodged only to seize these accounts. What was the material on the 18th?" the bench asked, adding that such urgency was rarely seen when ordinary citizens approached the police.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state police, defended the action by invoking Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that investigators were empowered to freeze property during an investigation to prevent the alleged proceeds of crime from being dissipated.

Mehta also argued that allowing one faction to operate the accounts could be interpreted as judicial recognition of that faction as the legitimate Trinamool Congress. The court, however, rejected that concern, clarifying that the interim arrangement would not determine the party's leadership dispute.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the de facto complainant, claimed his clients represented the "real" TMC and sought protection of the accounts.

The court declined to widen the scope of the proceedings, observing that the complainant had contested elections as a TMC candidate using funds from the same accounts before later lodging the complaint after joining another faction.

Observing that the complaint was "omnibus in nature" and did not identify any specific transaction showing unlawful enrichment, the court held that limited operation of the accounts under judicial supervision would balance the interests of the investigation and the functioning of a recognised political party until further orders.

- Ends