The Supreme Court on October 1 declined to entertain a plea filed by the Mamata Banerjee-led faction of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) challenging the debit-freezing of four bank accounts by the West Bengal Police. The Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale instead requested the Calcutta High Court to expedite the pending proceedings.
The petition concerned four Indian Bank accounts that the party sought permission to operate. The Supreme Court did not examine the merits of the allegations or decide the competing claims concerning the funds.
Background
The dispute arose after a complaint led to a criminal investigation by the West Bengal Police and the subsequent freezing of the four accounts. The AITC approached the Calcutta High Court seeking interim relief, but the High Court declined to permit operation of the accounts at that stage.
The party then approached the Supreme Court. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the AITC faction, submitted that the freezing of the accounts was affecting the party's regular functioning. He also pointed out that these four Indian Bank accounts were distinct from three HDFC Bank accounts involved in an earlier proceeding.
The earlier HDFC accounts had been permitted to be operated for day-to-day expenses under the supervision of a court-appointed officer.
Singhvi submitted that the party's audited expenditure showed a requirement of around ₹12.15 crore every month for its operations, excluding several political and other expenses. He argued that freezing the accounts had created serious difficulties for the party.
The Bench suggested that the court-appointed administrator could also deal with the four accounts. Singhvi indicated that the party could accept such an arrangement on an interim basis.
Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the internal dispute concerning the party and the investigation arising from the complaint. He also referred to allegations concerning a substantial cash deposit into the accounts and matters being examined by the investigating agency.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, appearing for the complainant, submitted that the party had already been permitted to meet its day-to-day expenses through the earlier arrangement.
The Bench noted that the earlier proceedings concerning the HDFC accounts were separate from the present dispute involving the four Indian Bank accounts. It also took note of the Election Commission proceedings concerning the party's symbol and the broader dispute over which faction was entitled to represent the organisation.
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to examine the merits of the dispute or interfere with the High Court proceedings.
"We refrain from going into the merits. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136. We request the High Court to expedite hearing."
Accordingly, the Supreme Court declined to grant the relief sought by the AITC faction and requested the Calcutta High Court to proceed with the pending matter expeditiously.
Case Detials:
Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal & Others
Case Number: SLP(Crl) No. 18064/2026
Judge: Justice MM Sundresh and Justice PB Varale
Decision Date: October 1, 2026
