The State’s argument was that the Election Commission’s order splitting the two Trinamool factions had cost the Mamata Banerjee-led group its claim over the party’s frozen bank accounts. The Calcutta High Court did not accept that the point was settled. The Commission had itself called its order interim, meant for the coming by-elections and to last only until it finally decides who the real Trinamool Congress is. On that footing, the Court held, the factional question is still open, and extended the arrangement letting the Mamata faction operate the accounts.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has extended its interim order permitting the Mamata Banerjee-led faction of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) to operate three party bank accounts that had been frozen, observing that the Election Commission of India’s interim arrangement on the party’s name and symbol cannot be treated as a final adjudication of the dispute between the two factions [All India Trinamool Congress v. Union of India].
Justice Saugata Bhattacharya was hearing a plea by the Mamata Banerjee-led faction seeking relief in respect of the frozen accounts.
The dispute
The State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioners had lost their claim over the accounts following the Election Commission’s interim order separating the two factions for the coming by-elections, under which they were identified as Mamata-AITC and Democratic-TMC. The State argued that the accounts stood in the name of the “All India Trinamool Congress” and that, in view of the Commission’s order, the Mamata-AITC faction could no longer claim the right to operate them.
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, for the Mamata-AITC faction, submitted that the principal question of recognition of the factions remained pending before the Election Commission, and that the High Court’s earlier order had been challenged before the Supreme Court.
What the Court held
The Court noted that, under its earlier order, the accounts had been permitted to be used for limited purposes after obtaining the approval of a Special Officer, without deciding which faction was the “real TMC”, and that the earlier order had not permitted the Democratic-TMC faction to take any action in respect of the accounts, while recording that the dispute was pending before the Election Commission and that any decision of the Commission could be brought to the Court’s notice.
Turning to the Commission’s interim order, the Court observed that although it had been contended that the Mamata-AITC faction had lost its right to operate the accounts, the Commission had itself described its order as interim, intended to address the position for the coming by-elections and to remain effective only until the final determination of the dispute.
“Notwithstanding ECI directions touching upon use of name and symbol, that is for the purpose of ensuing by elections only and the same is an interim direction pending determination by ECI.”
Since the recognition of the factions was still pending before the Commission and its order was interim, the Court held, it could not be inferred that the issue had been finally adjudicated by the poll panel.
The order
The Court accordingly extended the interim arrangement. When counsel for the Mamata-AITC faction sought its continuation until the Commission passed its final order, the Court directed that the interim order would remain in force until January 29, 2027, or until further orders.
Why it matters
The order turns on the distinction between an interim arrangement and a final adjudication. The Election Commission’s freeze of the party name and symbol, and its allotment of separate names to the two factions, was expressly a stopgap for the by-elections, pending its substantive decision under the Symbols Order on which group is the real Trinamool Congress. The High Court’s reasoning is that a measure the Commission itself labels interim cannot be read as having conclusively stripped one faction of its rights, here, the right to operate the party’s bank accounts, before the underlying question of recognition is decided.
The practical effect is to preserve the status quo on the accounts while the larger dispute plays out across forums, the recognition question before the Election Commission, and a related challenge to the High Court’s earlier order before the Supreme Court. The Court has not decided which faction is entitled to the accounts or to the party’s identity; it has held only that the Commission’s interim order does not settle that, and has continued the existing arrangement, under a Special Officer’s oversight, until January 2027 or further orders.
Nothing has been finally decided on the factional dispute, which remains pending before the Election Commission. The High Court’s order is an interim one about the operation of the accounts in the interim, and expressly leaves the question of recognition, and its consequences, to be determined by the Commission and the higher court seized of the matter.
Case: All India Trinamool Congress v. Union of India
Court: Justice Saugata Bhattacharya, High Court at Calcutta
Appearing: Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam for the Mamata Banerjee-led AITC faction
Status: Interim order permitting the Mamata-AITC faction to operate the frozen accounts extended until January 29, 2027, or until further orders. Recognition of the factions pending before the ECI; the ECI’s interim order held not to be a final adjudication.
