Court seeks bank affidavit, questions ‘hot haste’ in freezing TMC accounts

The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed a private bank to submit an affidavit detailing the Trinamool Congress’s (TMC) total deposits in the branch and the financial transactions in the accounts.

Justice Saugata Bhattacharya directed the manager of HDFC Bank’s Central Plaza branch to file the affidavit by July 8.

Amid internal strife in the TMC, the Mamata Banerjee-led faction had moved the Calcutta High Court after three of its accounts, allegedly containing Rs 440 crore, were frozen, seeking immediate intervention. TMC leader Aroop Biswas had asked the bank to freeze the party’s accounts, saying a “serious dispute” was going on within the organisation. A day later, the police also lodged a First Information Report (FIR) and launched an investigation.

The bench observed on Thursday, “What is troubling us is that the complaint was lodged on June 18 and it is omnibus. No specific allegations were made. The FIR was also registered on June 18, and the next day, the bank froze the account. It is bothering us how this happened in hot haste and what material the agency had.”

‘Let police investigate’

During the hearing, Kishore Dutta, senior counsel for the petitioner, the Mamata Banerjee-led faction, submitted, “The police have entertained an FIR based on suspicion. They started with three accounts, and now, another five have also been frozen. Based on mere suspicion in a complaint, all transactions have been stopped.”

The court questioned whether it would be proper for it to “go into the veracity of the allegations” while the police are investigating the matter. “Let the investigation examine that. When the issue is hazy, it will not be proper for us to look into the veracity of the charges. In-depth analysis of the allegations cannot be examined now. Here, no apprehension is expressed regarding arrest. The issue is with three bank accounts…whether it is appropriate to debit-freeze the accounts during an investigation. The effort of this court is to look into what extent the debit-freeze is needed at this stage,” the bench said.

The court further enquired, “What will happen if proceeds of crime are deposited in the account as alleged. What is the option left to the investigation agency? You (petitioner) are saying debit freeze is not possible, but if allegations are that proceeds of crime are deposited in the account, then what can the agency do? What is the effect of seizing the account but not freezing?”

Story continues below this ad

Initially, the court proposed to appoint special officers, retired judges, to supervise as the Mamata Banerjee-led faction operates the account.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing virtually, requested the court to defer its order for a few days. Mehta submitted, “There is a comprehensive scheme. This is a seizure, not attachment. We have conducted an investigation. We will show the money is being siphoned. I request you to defer the order for a few days.”

To this, the court observed, “We are proposing that they be permitted to operate the account for a few days.” Addressing this, the solicitor general said that the question now was who can operate the accounts.

‘State machinery can’t paralyse losing party’

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the TMC “has lost the election and lost its members. The difference is 4-5 per cent vote share. A losing party cannot be paralysed by use of state machinery after an immediate FIR. Both factions of TMC can fight in the court.”

Story continues below this ad

“The larger consideration is where a level playing field and a political party under Article 19 are the basis of democracy, can a friendly police force paralyse a running political party by freezing its funds?” he added.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kaul said the Election Commission of India will decide who represents the party. “Our objection is that if a faction is trying to route the funds out, then the investigation agency has to look into it. We are asking on whose authority is this person representing the TMC? How is the petition maintainable?”

Solicitor General Mehta voiced his concern. “…there are two factions. If your lordships pass an order on disbursal of the money, if both these persons claiming to be presidents ask for disbursal of amounts. Right now, none of the factions should operate. Let the accounts be frozen. Let them place the corpus. We will place our report. After that, the court may pass an order.”