The Supreme Court has refused to grant immediate relief in the case of the freezing of four TMC bank accountsThe party had approached the Supreme Court challenging the actions of the West Bengal Police.
Published: October 1, 2026, 3:20 PM IST
Share Article
https://www.india.com/news/india/big-setback-for-mamata-banerjee-sc-refuses-to-interfere-in-freezing-of-4-tmc-bank-accounts-issue-8531914/
BIG setback for Mamata Banerjee, SC refuses to interfere in freezing of 4 TMC bank accounts issue (PTI)
Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress party has not received immediate relief from the Supreme Court in the case of freezing of four of its bank accountsThe apex court refused to intervene in the petition filed against the action of the West Bengal PoliceHowever, the court did not issue a decision on the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court clarified that it will not delve into the merits of the case at this timeIt also requested the Calcutta High Court to expedite the hearing of the main caseThis matter is related to the police investigation initiated following a complaint by TMC MLA Vishwanath DasDuring this investigation, the police debit-froze four of the party’s accounts in Indian BankThe party had requested permission to operate the accountsHowever, the Supreme Court has now refused to intervene in the matter related to that interim relief.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) during the hearingHe argued that the freezing of all four accounts was impacting the party’s day-to-day operationsHe told the court that, according to the party’s accounting records, a minimum of ₹12.15 crore (₹12.15 crore) is required each month for normal operationsHe argued that freezing the accounts could impact political activitiesMeanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the West Bengal government, opposed the petition, citing separate FIRs and investigations into multiple allegationsAfter hearing arguments from both sides, the court declined to examine the merits of the case and directed the High Court to expedite the main hearing.
What did the Supreme Court say?
A bench of Justices M.MSundaresh and BVarale refused to grant immediate relief on the TMC’s petitionThe court stated that the main case was already pending in the Calcutta High Court, and therefore, it did not wish to intervene at this stage under Article 136 of the ConstitutionHowever, the Supreme Court requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the caseThis means that a final legal decision regarding the four accounts is still pending.
Investigation began after the MLA’s complaint
The case began on June 18, 2026TMC MLA Vishwanath Das filed a complaint with the Bidhannagar Cyber Crime PoliceThe complaint alleged illegal activities and financial transactions through the party’s bank accountsBased on this complaint, an FIR was registeredThe TMC subsequently approached the Calcutta High Court, challenging the freezing of the bank accounts.
These four accounts are different from HDFC accounts
An important point in this case is that these four accounts are different from the three HDFC Bank accounts that were previously frozenIn the earlier case involving the HDFC accounts, the Calcutta High Court on July 9th allowed the party to manage its daily and monthly expenses, under the supervision of a special officerOn August 11th, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with that interim arrangement.
The current case involves four accounts held at the Harish Mukherjee Road branch of Indian BankOn August 27th, the Calcutta High Court refused to grant additional interim relief to operate these accountsThe Supreme Court has also not immediately intervened, although the High Court has been asked to hear the case expeditiously.
What arguments did both the parties present in the court?
Singhvi, representing the TMC, argued that the freeze on the accounts was impacting the party’s operationsHe also argued that the old HDFC accounts and the current Indian Bank accounts should be considered separatelyTushar Mehta, representing the state, cited separate allegations that emerged during the investigation and a separate FIRThe complainant also presented arguments regarding the use of the accountsThe court did not render any final opinion on these allegations at this stageIt simply determined that it would not delve into the merits of the case at this stageThe main case will now proceed to the Calcutta High Court.
