Declining to disturb the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has said that, since the Election Commission has frozen the symbol of the All India Trinamool Congress, the larger question of who is entitled to operate the party’s bank accounts has to be decided first; the party had argued before the Court that the freezing of its accounts was paralysing its political activity ahead of a bye-election.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to interfere with an order of the Calcutta High Court on a plea by the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC) seeking permission to operate four bank accounts that have been frozen, observing that the Election Commission’s freezing of the party symbol means the larger issue of who is entitled to operate the accounts must first be decided [All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal and Others].
A Bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice P. B. Varale dictated the order in open court on October 1, 2026, after hearing Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the party and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar in opposition.
‘A political party has to run’: AITC’s case
Dr Singhvi submitted that the freezing of all of a party’s accounts is the surest way of stopping its political activity. He said the party’s published audited accounts show a minimum annual expenditure of Rs 212 crore, that AITC is the third-largest political party in the country with offices in six States, national and State media teams and party meetings across the country, and that a bye-election is approaching. Even after reducing expenditure to the bare minimum for political activity, he said, the party needs Rs 12.15 crore a month after the declaration of results, over and above the day-to-day expenditure the Court had earlier permitted.
He told the Court that the High Court had said it would hear the matter in due course, which, he argued, served no purpose as the party remained paralysed, and that a State Police should not be allowed to paralyse a political party in this manner. He also relied on Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides a filter through a Magistrate, and said the present freeze had no such judicial element:
“Here, there is no judicial element, no Magistrate and no ED. It is simply the State Police.”
ALSO READ: TMC Bank Accounts: Calcutta High Court Declines Further Relief On Four Frozen Accounts
The Solicitor General’s response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that this Court had already directed the Election Commission to decide which faction is the real AITC, and that the Calcutta High Court had appointed a Special Officer until September. He further told the Court that, apart from the dispute over the party, a complaint had been filed and it had come to light that one of the personal assistants of the party’s office-bearers had deposited Rs 35 crore in cash into an account. Referring to the anticipatory bail plea that Sumit Roy has filed before the Supreme Court, he said the accounts were frozen and the matter was under investigation. He added that the allegation was that, when a different government was in power, the person concerned used to convert government land into private land and sell it. These allegations have not been tested and the Court did not rule on them.
Mr Mehta pointed out that the High Court has said it will take up the matter after Durga Puja, and that this Court may consider preponing the hearing, though all these arguments had already been made before the High Court. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar submitted that the party was seeking additional expenditure over and above its day-to-day expenses, and referred to the Election Commission’s order of September 17.
Responding, Dr Singhvi said that the Election Commission’s order said nothing about the bank accounts and dealt only with the symbol issue, that the party’s case was that it was unable to operate its accounts, and that money laundering, which the other side was raising, was not the subject matter of this case. He also clarified that the earlier orders of the Court concerned HDFC Bank accounts, while the accounts before the Court on this occasion are Indian Bank accounts.
Supreme Court’s order
Dictating the order, the Court recorded that the Election Commission has frozen the party symbol and tied that to the question of who may operate the accounts:
“The Election Commission has frozen the symbol and, therefore, the larger issue as to who is entitled to operate the accounts has to be decided.”
It then added that it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s order.
Background of the case
The accounts before the Court are separate from the three accounts for which the Calcutta High Court had earlier fixed an interim arrangement. On July 9, 2026 the High Court appointed a Special Officer to supervise the party’s day-to-day expenditure from three accounts, an arrangement the Supreme Court left undisturbed in August. On August 26, 2026 the High Court declined to pass any further interim order on the plea concerning four more frozen accounts, observing that the July 9 arrangement already allowed the party to meet its day-to-day expenses.
On September 21, 2026 the High Court extended its interim order permitting the Mamata Banerjee-led faction to operate three frozen accounts until January 29, 2027 or further orders, noting that the Election Commission’s interim arrangement on the party name and symbol cannot be treated as a final adjudication of the factional dispute.
Why the order matters
The order ties the fate of the four accounts to the unresolved question of who represents the party, which is now before the Election Commission, and leaves the High Court’s order untouched, so the plea is left to the High Court, which has said it will take up the matter after Durga Puja. The Court has not expressed any view on the allegations raised by the Solicitor General or on the legality of the freezing of the accounts.
Case Title: All India Trinamool Congress v. State of West Bengal and Others
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice P. B. Varale, Supreme Court of India
Hearing Date: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi for the All India Trinamool Congress; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar opposing the plea