The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to intervene in the factional dispute between the two Trinamool Congress (TMC) camps over the operation of the party bank accounts allowing the objections to be raised before the Calcutta High Court hearing the matter.
Turning down the plea filed by All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) to be allowed to operate its bank accounts, which were frozen by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as part of its money laundering probe against the party, the top court refused to interfere with a July 9 order of the high court. That order directed the party to use three of its bank accounts for meeting daily expenses under the supervision of the court-appointed special officer.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale said, “The high court has passed a balanced order…the high court has taken care of the interest of both sides,” as it disposed of the petition filed by AITC. The court also heard an appeal filed by rebel AITC legislator Biswanath Das who approached the high court against the parent party alleging that an amount of ₹350 crore was transferred into a single bank account just after the state assembly election results were declared on May 5.
“We are not concerned about the factions. We only thought of providing an interim arrangement. There is a submission made by ED that sufficient funds are available for daily expenses. What more is required,” the top court bench observed.
{{/usCountry}}“We are not concerned about the factions. We only thought of providing an interim arrangement. There is a submission made by ED that sufficient funds are available for daily expenses. What more is required,” the top court bench observed.
{{/usCountry}}The court disposed of the appeal filed by Das by allowing him to raise all his objections before the high court which is hearing his plea. The court said, “We are conscious of the fact that the main petition is pending in the high court. Any discussion on merit by us will have a bearing on the case before the high court.”
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Menaka Guruswamy appeared for AITC while Das was represented by senior advocate K Parameshwar.
Last week, the court heard the matter and asked the ED to take instructions regarding the need for an interim arrangement to carry out the party’s daily expenses. The party claimed that the five bank accounts related to AITC hold a total amount of over ₹400 crore, even though the alleged proceeds of crime, according to the ED is only ₹160 crore.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju appearing for the federal agency said that the high court order permits the party to withdraw the amount for carrying out daily expenses. He stated that one of the bank accounts, holding ₹120 crore has not been encumbered and the same is available for use by the party. Sibal opposed this statement, saying the concerned bank stated that the account is under attachment.
The bench told Sibal, “We are recording the statement of ASG. He is stating something in your favour. According to ED, sufficient funds are available.”
Singhvi, who opposed Das’s petition, stated that it is quite strange that a person who used party funds for his election has now filed a complaint on June 18 against transfer of funds by the party.
Guruswamy stated that employees alone require ₹51 lakh to be paid. Besides this, there are election-related bills and associated expenses to be incurred for which the party needs access to the accounts.
Sibal stated that the Bidhannagar cybercrime police have issued a “debit freeze” on the accounts not encumbered by the ED, which practically froze those accounts for operation by the party. According to him, even the ED order freezing the party bank accounts was issued on July 7, days after the Calcutta high court indicated on July 2 that it was inclined to pass an interim order.
Parmeshwar said that the funds lying in the bank accounts maintained by the party equally belong to them as they claim to be the “real” party although the issue is to be decided by the Election Commission. In such a scenario, he objected to the HC’s July 9 order permitting only one faction to operate the accounts.
The bench told Parmeshwar that the high court can hear all his objections, as any observation by the top court could affect similar claims. “If we give effect to the high court order, then any party can approach this court seeking similar relief,” the bench observed.