The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to defreeze four Indian Bank accounts containing ₹800 crore operated by the Trinamool Congress. The court said the issue was connected to a row between two party factions pending before the Calcutta High Court. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "Every day a political party's oxygen is paralysed."
Calcutta HC extends Mahua Moitra's armed security and arrest protection, while the top court seeks Bengal's response on her MPLADS and OBC pleas
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to defreeze four Indian Bank accounts containing ₹800 crore, operated by the Mamata Banerjee-led faction of the Trinamool Congress.
The top court rejected the appeal to defreeze the accounts, saying the issue was connected to the row between two Trinamool factions over the party's name and symbol, pending adjudication before Calcutta High Court.
The Supreme Court said since the Election Commission had frozen the party's official symbol and name through an order on September 17, the larger question of who was entitled to the funds remained pending adjudication.
"We refrain from going into the merits. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution (power to entertain any special leave petition against any order/judgment etc even when there is no statutory appeal available). We request the high court to expedite the hearing," a division bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale said in an order.
Bengal police had frozen the four accounts.
"Every day a political party's oxygen is paralysed," senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the Mamata faction of Trinamool, said during the hearing on Thursday.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Bengal government, told the bench that the accounts had been frozen after an alleged disclosure by Sumit Roy, personal secretary to party MP Abhishek Banerjee, about the transfer of unaccounted ₹35 crore to one of the accounts.
HC on Mahua security
Calcutta High Court on Thursday issued directives concerning Mamata Banerjee loyalist and Krishnanagar MP Mahua Moitra, extending her armed security detail and interim protection from arrest, while transferring her petition against police inaction during an egg attack on her to the division bench headed by Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge.
Issuing the directives, Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya extended the window of Moitra's armed security cover until November 30. This cover mandates that the district police chief in Krishnanagar depute at least two armed personnel during her entry into or travel through her constituency.
On September 16, a crowd threw eggs at her during her visit to Tehatta, despite the existing security cover. Moitra's counsel, Arka Nag, filed a fresh petition alleging deliberate police inaction.
On a separate legal front, Justice Bhattacharyya extended Moitra's interim protection from coercive action until January 29. This protection relates to an FIR registered in June at Hogalberia police station on her alleged communal remarks. The state's counsel, advocate-general Surojit Nath Mitra, placed a formal status report in court confirming that Moitra appeared before the investigating officer at Hogalberia police station on August 14 and answered queries. The court ordered that while the probe would continue and the MP must cooperate with investigators, no coercive steps could be taken against her. The matter will be heard again on January 13.
Prod to Bengal govt
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Bengal government on Krishnanagar MP Mohua Moitra, who alleged she was not being allowed by the present ruling party (the BJP) to undertake her Member of Parliament Local Area Development Schemes (MPLADS).
A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana brushed aside the objection of solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Bengal government, who argued that the present petition ought not be entertained as it could impel 500 other MPs to approach the court seeking such reliefs.
The court permitted the Bengal government to file its response within a week and posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
OBC groups
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Bengal government to a batch of petitions challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment that declared as void ab initio (illegal from the very start) the reclassification of OBC groups in May and June 2025 by the erstwhile Mamata Banerjee regime.