In a significant legal victory for the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted interim relief to the party by allowing the operation of its frozen bank accounts holding ₹440 crore.
Justice Sougata Bhattacharya questioned the unusual swiftness of the police action and noted that investigators have failed to provide substantial evidence to justify freezing the accounts. While permitting the party to access the funds, the court appointed a Special Officer to oversee daily expenditures.
Court Questions Police Agility and Lack of Evidence
During the hearing, Justice Bhattacharya raised sharp questions regarding the timeline and motives behind the freezing of the three political accounts, which occurred following complaints by rebel party MLAs.
* Select Vigilance: The court asked why the police showed extraordinary promptness in this case, noting that law enforcement rarely exhibits such speed when ordinary citizens lodge complaints.
* Absence of Proof: The bench remarked that a preliminary review of the three frozen accounts revealed a distinct lack of detailed information or compelling evidence that would warrant such an extreme step.
* Delayed Grievances: Justice Bhattacharya questioned the timing of the complaints, asking the rebel MLAs why they remained silent before the election results and raised objections only after June 18.
“You contested and won on a TMC ticket. Then the facts changed, and you filed a complaint? Why weren’t these questions raised on May 4?” the Court observed.
Special Officer Appointed for Financial Oversight
To balance the allegations of suspicious transactions with the party’s right to utilize its funds, the High Court introduced an oversight mechanism rather than keeping the accounts completely locked.
* Appointment: Retired Justice Subrata Talukdar has been appointed as the Special Officer to monitor the accounts.
* Tenure: This oversight arrangement will remain in effect until September 30.
* Operation: Any two authorized signatories from the TMC can operate the accounts. However, details of all daily expenditures must be submitted to the Special Officer, who will countersign the transactions to prevent any potential siphoning of funds.
The Court explicitly rejected a plea by Advocate General Surajit Mitra to cap monthly expenditures—such as employee salaries—stating that since it is a TMC account, the party retains the authority to determine its spending.
High-Volt Political Drama in the Courtroom
The legal battle saw intense arguments from top legal minds representing the rival factions of the party.
Representing the mainstream “Kalighat” TMC faction, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned how victorious MLAs could suddenly challenge the party’s finances after receiving funds. He argued that bank accounts cannot be frozen arbitrarily based on mere allegations without a magistrate’s order. Taking a swipe at the rebel camp, Singhvi remarked that it might be a “Guinness World Record” for a faction acting as an opposition while claiming to support the ruling party.
On the other side, counsel for the dissident faction, K. Parameshwar, asserted that his clients represented the “real TMC” and demanded control over the accounts to prevent alleged misuse.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the investigators, stated that it was impossible for the police to determine which faction constitutes the “real” party, adding that the action was taken after recording statements from complaining lawmakers.