- The Supreme Court considered allowing the Trinamool limited access to frozen bank accounts for expenses
- The court asked the ED to explore interim arrangements pending the Calcutta HC decision
- Trinamool lawyers challenged the freezing as disproportionate and based on tentative allegations
The Supreme Court today explored the possibility of allowing the All India Trinamool Congress to access a limited portion of its frozen bank accounts to meet its day-to-day expenses, while asking the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to consider an interim arrangement until the Calcutta High Court decides the matter.
A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale asked the Central agency whether a limited amount could be released through Justice (Retd) Subrata Talukdar, the special officer appointed by the Calcutta High Court, pending adjudication of the dispute.
Taking note that the writ petition is listed before the court on August 20, the bench requested both sides to cooperate for its quick disposal. The matter will be heard next 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 -- arguing that the action was disproportionate and unsupported by the material relied upon during the investigation.
Referring to the ED's complaint and the freezing orders, Sibal submitted that while the agency alleged around Rs 160 crore had been routed through the accounts, it had frozen accounts containing substantially larger sums.
Reading from the complaint, Sibal argued that even the allegations were tentative in nature. "It has come to my knowledge... through reliable circumstances and surrounding developments, that certain funds allegedly arising out of illegal activities, including misuse of influence, dishonest financial dealings and suspected unlawful collection of money may have been routed," he read.
He further contended that the Calcutta High Court had proceeded on an incorrect factual premise that 36 other accounts containing around Rs 164 crore remained available to the party. Citing an additional affidavit and bank communications, Sibal argued that those accounts had also been subjected to a debit freeze.
"These are the very accounts that have been frozen, and the judge says they are available with me. This is their own document," he submitted. Arguing that the party was unable to meet its routine financial obligations, Sibal told the bench, "I can't pay my employees".
He also questioned the ED's legal basis for freezing the source accounts, arguing that if the agency alleged proceeds of crime had been transferred to another account, only the recipient account could be frozen.
"If I give money, which are proceeds of crime, to B, B's accounts will be frozen. But they have frozen A's account. How can they do that?" he argued.
Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said the agency's action was intended to prevent continued money laundering.
"The Money Laundering Act is not only for actual money laundering but prevention of money laundering. We are preventing it... the process of cycling is continuing daily," Raju submitted.
The bench, however, questioned the ED's contention that funds continued to move through the accounts despite the freezing orders. "The account is frozen. How can you make that statement?" Justice Sundresh asked.
When the ASG reiterated that the investigation was continuing, the bench clarified that it was not examining the merits of the allegations. "We are not going into the merits of the case," the court observed, adding that both sides will be free to raise all their contentions before the Calcutta High Court.
