Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Order Governing Use Of TMC Bank Accounts Frozen Under PMLA

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court's July 20 order refusing interim relief to the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) against the Enforcement Directorate's freezing of three of its bank accounts in a money laundering investigation.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was hearing the AITC's challenge to the July 20 order of the Calcutta High Court, which refused to grant interim relief against the ED's July 7 freezing order, as well as the July 9 order under which the High Court had allowed the party to operate the three accounts for day-to-day expenses under the supervision of a special officer.

The court observed that the arrangement put in place by the High Court was “balanced” and “takes care of the interests of the parties.”

The court also gave the AITC and West Bengal MLA Biswanath Das liberty to place their respective objections before the Special Officer appointed by the High Court.

The AITC's Supreme Court plea challenged the July 20 High Court order, which had refused to grant interim relief against the ED's July 7 freezing order and the money laundering proceedings initiated by the agency.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Das before the Cyber Crime Police Station on June 18, 2026. Das alleged that funds arising from illegal activities had been routed into three HDFC Bank accounts. The police registered an FIR on the same day.

The three accounts were initially frozen by the police. In separate proceedings, the Calcutta High Court on July 9 appointed a former judge as a special officer and allowed the AITC to operate the accounts for its day-to-day and monthly expenses under his supervision.

The ED subsequently initiated a money laundering investigation after the FIR. It registered an ECIR on June 23 and issued a freezing order on July 7 covering six bank accounts, including the three HDFC accounts.

The AITC then challenged the ED's freezing order and the ECIR proceedings before the Calcutta High Court. On July 20, the High Court refused interim relief. It noted that the ED had not frozen 36 other AITC accounts in which around ₹164 crore was lying.

The AITC subsequently challenged the July 20 order before the Supreme Court.

During an earlier hearing on August 3, the Supreme Court had explored whether the AITC could be allowed to access a limited portion of its frozen funds to meet its day-to-day expenses.

The court had asked the ED whether some amount could be released to the party through Justice (Retd.) Subrata Talukdar, the Special Officer appointed by the High Court.

At Tuesday's hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the AITC, submitted that the party was still unable to access sufficient funds for its day-to-day functioning.

Sibal said that although the ED had identified 36 accounts, which it said were not frozen, 31 of them were fixed deposits. He further submitted that four of the five operative accounts had also been debit-frozen by the police.

“Everything is frozen. I can't pay my salaries. I can't pay my employees,” Sibal submitted.

He said the party had around 215 employees and monthly salary liabilities of approximately ₹51.23 lakh, apart from office and security expenses.

Sibal also questioned the extent of the ED's freezing action, submitting: “If your proceeds of crime are 160 crores, why are you freezing more?”

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, opposed the plea. He relied on the agency's affidavit identifying around 36 AITC accounts which, according to the ED, had not been frozen and remained available for salaries, day-to-day expenses and other legitimate expenditure.

Counsel appearing for Das opposed broader access to the accounts. He referred to an alleged ₹360 crore inflow after the election results and raised objections concerning the competing claims over control of the AITC.

The Supreme Court indicated that these objections could be placed before the Special Officer rather than being decided by the court at this stage.

While dictating the order, the bench said, "We are satisfied that the High Court has passed the balanced order.”

The bench further observed that the interim arrangement “takes care of interest of the parties.”

The court said it was “not inclined to entertain both matters” and granted the AITC and Das liberty to place their respective objections before the Special Officer.

The bench also clarified that it was not disturbing the existing arrangement. “We are not touching this order,” it said.

The Supreme Court accordingly disposed of the proceedings, leaving the existing arrangement in place and permitting the AITC and Das to raise their respective objections before the Special Officer.

The July 20 High Court order had found that the AITC had not established a prima facie case or balance of convenience warranting interim relief against the ED's freezing action. It therefore refused the interim order sought by the party.