TMC Bank Accounts Freeze: Supreme Court Upholds Calcutta HC’s “Balanced Order” Amid ED Probe

The Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale was hearing a plea filed by the AITC challenging the High Court's refusal to stay the ED's freezing of three party bank accounts and the ongoing money laundering investigation.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the AITC, while Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the ED. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Menaka Guruswamy also appeared for the party.

The Supreme Court ultimately declined to retain the matters, observing that the main petitions remain pending before the Calcutta High Court and that any detailed consideration of the issues at this stage could affect those proceedings.

The Bench held that the interim arrangement already put in place by the High Court was sufficient to protect the interests of the parties.

Sibal: ₹60 crore alleged proceeds of crime, but over ₹400 crore frozen

During the hearing, Sibal submitted that the ED's alleged proceeds of crime were around ₹60 crore, while more than ₹400 crore was lying in the party's accounts. He questioned the freezing of the entire amount, saying that the party was unable to meet its regular expenses, including salaries and operational costs.

“The petitioner employs approximately 250 employees, whose salaries for the current month remain due and payable. The aggregate salary liability is approximately ₹53.23 lakh,” Sibal submitted.

He further said the party operates 17 offices, with monthly expenditure of approximately ₹1 crore, apart from contractual obligations towards agencies providing office personnel and security services.

Sibal also told the Court that 36 accounts were covered by the freezing orders, comprising five bank accounts and 31 fixed deposits.

“If the FDs are encashed, the money will go into accounts that are frozen,” he submitted.

According to Sibal, four additional bank accounts had also been frozen pursuant to orders issued by the Cyber Crime Police Station. He argued that the freezing orders had severely affected the party's ability to function.

Sibal further submitted that accounts of an airline company from which the party had obtained aircraft services had also been attached, along with the party's own accounts. He alleged that the accounts were frozen on July 7, shortly before the Calcutta High Court was to pass an interim order.

ED says ₹120 crore available in other accounts

ASG SV Raju opposed the submissions and told the Bench that the party was already protected insofar as its day-to-day expenses were concerned.

The Bench asked how much money was available in the three accounts that could be operated under the High Court's interim arrangement.

Raju submitted that approximately ₹120 crore was available in other accounts and pointed out that the High Court had already permitted operation of certain accounts for day-to-day expenses.

He also informed the Court that a dispute between rival factions over who was authorised to operate the accounts was pending before the Calcutta High Court and was scheduled to be considered on August 24.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that it was not concerned with the factional dispute at this stage.

“We are not concerned with that. We were considering an interim arrangement. But you are saying the interim order already passed by the High Court would cover this?” the Bench asked.

Raju responded in the affirmative.

Rival faction challenges operation of TMC accounts

Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for MLA Biswanath Das, also made submissions opposing the arrangement.

He submitted that the accounts had been frozen pursuant to a complaint lodged by Das, alleging large-scale financial irregularities within the party.

Parameshwar said the faction claiming to represent the TMC had not disclosed details of its accounts or the funds available to it.

He argued that allowing one faction to operate the accounts could prejudice the rival faction, particularly amid a dispute over who legally constituted the TMC.

“The question of who constitutes the TMC is currently pending before the Election Commission,” he submitted.

Parameshwar further alleged that one account had received approximately ₹360 crore within 20 days after the elections and questioned the basis on which the account could be operated.

He urged the Court to require disclosure of the number of accounts held by the party and the amounts lying in them.

The Bench, however, pointed out that the High Court's order provided for operation of the accounts through a court-appointed Special Officer.

“The order says the court-appointed Administrator will operate the accounts. It is not as if either faction is going to operate them,” the Bench observed.

Supreme Court says High Court passed "balanced order"

Justice MM Sundresh observed that both the orders under challenge were only interim orders and that the Court's immediate concern was to ensure that the functioning of the party was not stalled.

“Both orders are only interim orders. Our intention was to ensure that nothing is stalled. The July 9 interim order takes care of that,” Justice Sundresh said.

The Bench further indicated that it would not make detailed observations on the merits of the dispute at this stage.

The Supreme Court thereafter dictated a common order. The Court noted that it had perused the records, including the impugned order challenged in SLP Nos. 14649/14691 of 2026, and was satisfied that the Calcutta High Court had passed a “balanced order” in WPA No. 14081/2026.

The Bench noted that the main petitions, including WPA Nos. 14081/2026 and 16285/2026, were still pending before the High Court. It held that any detailed discussion on the merits at this stage could have a bearing on the pending proceedings.

The Court concluded that the interim order passed by the Calcutta High Court adequately protected the interests of all parties. Accordingly, the Bench declined to retain the matters and disposed of the petitions. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner in SLP No. 14691/2026 to place objections before the Special Officer appointed by the High Court.

“Disposed of,” the Court ordered.

Background