The Supreme Court on Monday (August 3, 2026) urged the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to consider allowing the Trinamool Congress (TMC) access to a portion of the funds lying in three debit-frozen bank accounts, observing that the party would require money to meet its day-to-day expenses. The court, however, made it clear that it would not examine at this stage the merits of the dispute over the legality of the freezing order, which remains pending before the Calcutta High Court.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale was hearing the TMC’s appeal against a July 20 order of the Calcutta High Court refusing to grant interim relief against the ED’s decision to freeze three HDFC Bank accounts belonging to the party as part of a money-laundering investigation. The Bench declined to stay the High Court’s order but asked the central agency to obtain instructions on whether a portion of the funds could be released and revert after a week.
Why are rival groups of Trinamool Congress laying claim over party funds | Explained
“We are not passing any order because it has to be decided by the High Court… We have suggested to both sides that some amount can be released for the administration, for daily expenses and some other necessary expenses,” the Bench said, while listing the matter for further hearing on Tuesday (August 4, 2026).
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the TMC, told the court that the restrictions on the three accounts had “completely stifled” the party financially, affecting its ability to meet employee salaries, legal costs and other day-to-day expenses.
“I can’t pay my employees… See what the consequences are. You say on what basis you are freezing the entire amount lying in the accounts,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
The Bench also questioned the basis for the ED’s action and sought to know what portion of the funds in the accounts could be linked to the alleged proceeds of crime. “It looks very vague. What are the proceeds of crime you are talking about?” it asked, while also questioning the basis for freezing the entire amount lying in the accounts.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, submitted that the freezing order had been issued before the administrator was appointed. He further contended that the TMC operated several other bank accounts and was therefore not entirely without access to funds.
“Investigation is going on. We have frozen the accounts, but every day money is going out,” Mr. Raju submitted.
Mr. Sibal opposed the submission and questioned how funds could be withdrawn from accounts that had been frozen. “How can my learned friend make that statement? It is frozen,” he said.
The Bench then urged the law officer to obtain instructions on whether a portion of the funds could be released to meet the party’s immediate expenses, reiterating that it was not examining the merits of the dispute at this stage.
“We are not going into the merits of the case. Release some amount to the administrator pending the final order to be passed,” the Bench remarked.
On July 8, the ED separately froze the three accounts as part of a money-laundering investigation into alleged transfers of funds to Carewell Aviation India and an associated entity between April 2023 and June 2026, purportedly in connection with the acquisition of an aircraft and a helicopter.
A day later, on July 9, the High Court appointed retired judge Justice Subrata Talukdar as a special officer until September 30 and permitted the TMC limited access to the frozen accounts under his supervision. Under the arrangement, any two authorised signatories to the three accounts were permitted to present cheques to the court-appointed special officer whenever funds were required to meet the party’s day-to-day expenses.
However, on July 20, the High Court declined the TMC’s plea for further interim relief to operate the accounts. It held that the legality of the alleged fund transfers could not be examined at the interim stage and observed that the party could raise its objections before the adjudicating authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), as well as in the pending writ proceedings after the pleadings were completed.
The TMC has challenged the ED’s action on the ground that the agency has not identified which part of the money held in the three accounts constitutes alleged proceeds of crime or disclosed how the funds are connected to the money-laundering investigation.
Published – August 03, 2026 04:21 pm IST
