The Supreme Court on Tuesday explored the possibility of granting the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) limited access to its frozen bank accounts to meet routine expenses, while asking the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to consider an interim arrangement until the Calcutta High Court decides the matter.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale asked the central agency whether a restricted amount could be released through Justice (Retd.) Subrata Talukdar, the special officer appointed by the Calcutta High Court, pending adjudication of the dispute.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Noting that the writ petition is scheduled to be heard by the Calcutta High Court on August 20, the Supreme Court urged both parties to cooperate for an expeditious hearing. The matter before the apex court has been posted for further hearing on August 11.
Appearing for the Trinamool Congress, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy challenged the ED’s decision to freeze the party’s bank accounts under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), arguing that the action was disproportionate and lacked sufficient legal basis.
Sibal submitted that while the ED alleged that around Rs 160 crore had been routed through the accounts under investigation, it had frozen accounts holding significantly larger amounts. Referring to the agency’s complaint, he argued that the allegations themselves were tentative and based on suspicion rather than conclusive findings.
He also contended that the Calcutta High Court had proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption that the party still had access to 36 other bank accounts containing around Rs 164 crore. Citing additional affidavits and bank communications, Sibal claimed those accounts had also been placed under a debit freeze, leaving the party unable to meet its day-to-day financial obligations, including payment of employee salaries.
Questioning the legal basis of the ED’s action, Sibal argued that if allegedly tainted funds had been transferred to another account, only the recipient account should have been frozen, not the source account.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, defended the agency’s action, stating that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act empowers authorities not only to investigate money laundering but also to prevent its continuation. He argued that the freezing orders were necessary to stop the alleged circulation of illicit funds.
The bench, however, questioned the ED’s contention that funds continued to move through the accounts despite the freezing orders. Justice Sundresh observed that if the accounts were frozen, such a claim appeared inconsistent.
Clarifying that it was not examining the merits of the case, the Supreme Court said all legal and factual issues could be raised before the Calcutta High Court, while encouraging both sides to work towards an interim arrangement on the issue of access to funds for essential expenses.
(This story is published from a syndicated feed)
