TMC Moves Supreme Court Against Calcutta HC Order Refusing To Stay ED's Freezing Of Party Bank Accounts

The All India Trinamool Congress (AITMC) has moved the Supreme Court, challenging a July 20, 2026 Calcutta High Court order refusing to stay the Enforcement Directorate's freezing of three of its HDFC Bank accounts and a money laundering investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The probe relates to the ED's allegation that ₹133.84 crore was transferred from one of the party's accounts to Carewell Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. as part of a scheme to divert funds.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale is likely to hear the party's special leave petition on August 3.

The matter arose from a complaint lodged by West Bengal MLA Biswanath Das before the Bidhannagar Cyber Crime Police on June 18, 2026 alleging that funds generated through illegal activities, misuse of influence and dishonest financial dealings had been routed through three HDFC Bank accounts.

An FIR was registered on the same day under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. The ED registered an ECIR on June 23, 2026 and following searches, froze six bank accounts including three HDFC Bank accounts belonging to the AITC on July 7, 2026.

The party contended that the freezing action was arbitrary, mechanically undertaken and unsupported by any identifiable proceeds of crime. It also relied on an earlier July 9, 2026 order of a Coordinate Bench permitting operation of the three accounts through a Special Officer for meeting the party's day-to-day expenses.

The High Court however, held that it could not examine the legality of the alleged fund transfers at the interim stage and that the petitioners would have an opportunity to raise their objections before the PMLA Adjudicating Authority as well as in the writ proceedings after exchange of affidavits.

“This Court did not find any prima facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of the petitioners. In view of the above, interim order as prayed for by the petitioners, is refused.”, the Court said.

It further noted that the ED had analysed the accounts and recorded reasons to believe that substantial transfers had been made to various entities, justifying the freezing order under the PMLA.