Back
Denies Further to TMC Over Four More Frozen Bank Accounts
In a significant development for the , the has declined to pass any further interim orders regarding the freezing of four additional bank accounts by the . The court, presided over by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, held that its earlier order dated , which had been upheld by the , already adequately addressed the party's immediate financial needs by appointing a to facilitate day-to-day expenses.
Background: The Order and Its Implications
The controversy began when the TMC's bank accounts were frozen in connection with a criminal investigation under the same FIR. On , Justice Bhattacharya had passed an permitting the party to access its accounts only through a , strictly for salaries and rent, while barring full operational control. The TMC had challenged this restriction, but the subsequently upheld the High Court's approach. However, on , just before that order, the Cyber Cell had frozen four more accounts linked to the party, prompting the TMC to seek additional .
During the hearing,
, representing the TMC, argued that the freeze on these additional accounts was based on the same FIR and that the party needed access to funds beyond basic expenses.
"A political party has constitutionally protected expenses, including expenditure required for holding rallies and other political activities,"
she submitted. Guruswamy further contended that the FIR itself was "ridiculous" and sought to implicate the former Chief Minister in an organized crime case.
The State, represented by , opposed any further relief, citing investigation material that alleged large cash movements. Majumdar informed the court that the probe had revealed approximately ₹7 crore in cash and another ₹10 crore in cash deposits linked to the accounts whose was sought. He further disclosed that about ₹30 crore had been transferred from one of the accounts to , a company charge-sheeted in the recruitment scam case.
Court's Reasoning: No Scope for Further Interim Orders
Justice Bhattacharya, however, remained firm. He observed that granting further relief would effectively fault his earlier order, which had consciously restricted account operations.
"If I pass a further order, then my previous order will be faulted,"
the court remarked. Noting that the
order was designed to ensure the party's survival during the proceedings, the judge emphasized that the
mechanism was sufficient to handle the newly frozen accounts as well.
The court also questioned the need for additional interim measures, asking what would remain for
if the TMC were allowed unrestricted access at this stage.
"The best outcome would be for all the accounts to function so that the party could meet its expenditure, but I have consciously restricted the operation of the accounts under my earlier
,"
Justice Bhattacharya said.
Responding to the TMC's argument that a political party requires funds for rallies and political activities, the court reiterated that the had to be permitted to function in accordance with the order. It further noted that the had already dealt with the matter and that the TMC could operate its accounts to the extent covered by both the High Court and orders.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Investigation Needs and Party Functioning
This case highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between enabling criminal investigations and ensuring that political parties are not crippled during the pendency of proceedings. The 's approach—appointing a to oversee essential expenses while freezing full account access—reflects a pragmatic middle ground. However, the TMC's contention that constitutional freedoms of political expression and assembly require more than just salary and rent payments raises important questions about the scope of in such matters.
The court's refusal to expand relief for the four new accounts underscores its reluctance to alter a framework that was already scrutinized and upheld by the . By treating the additional freezes as falling under the same FIR, the court applied the same logic without creating a precedent for separate . This may encourage investigating agencies to freeze multiple accounts under a single FIR without fear of incremental judicial intervention.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this ruling clarifies that once an is in place governing a set of accounts, subsequent freezes tied to the same criminal case will not automatically trigger new interim hearings. Parties seeking additional relief must demonstrate that the earlier order is insufficient to address the new circumstances. The emphasis on "no further orders" signals that courts expect litigants to exhaust existing remedies before seeking fresh protective directions.
Moreover, the state's disclosure of large cash transfers to a company linked to a recruitment scam may influence the . The 's involvement and the existence of before the between rival factions add layers of complexity. The TMC has stated it will exchange pleadings and argue the matter on its merits, including a challenge to the FIR itself.
Conclusion
The 's refusal to grant further to the TMC over four more frozen bank accounts reinforces the primacy of its order, which now stands as the operative framework for the party's financial operations during the investigation. While the TMC continues to argue that the FIR is baseless and that its political activities require broader access to funds, the court has drawn a line, preserving the integrity of its earlier decision. The case now moves to , where the validity of the FIR and the legality of the account freezes will be tested.
