TMC MP Abhishek Banerjee moves Calcutta HC against bank account freeze
Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee on Monday moved the Calcutta High Court challenging the alleged freezing of his personal bank account by a private bank. The Diamond Harbour MP also sought an urgent hearing, citing his scheduled travel abroad for medical treatment, which has been permitted by the Supreme Court.
Justice Krishna Rao, after a preliminary hearing, listed the matter for Wednesday, August 19, and instructed Mr. Banerjee's counsel to serve notice on the involved parties. The court's decision came after his lawyer Ayan Bhattacharjee argued that the account was frozen without adhering to established legal procedures.
Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that the bank's action was not preceded by any police requisition or formal complaint. He argued that the bank had no jurisdiction to take such a step unilaterally, and that the action had caused undue hardship to Mr. Banerjee, who relies on the account for his expenses and those of his family.
When Justice Rao asked whether any investigation is currently underway against the TMC leader, his counsel confirmed the existence of probes but noted that the High Court had earlier granted Mr. Banerjee protection from coercive action in connection with those investigations. The lawyer contended that this protection should extend to the freezing of bank accounts, as it would impede the MP's ability to access funds for personal and legal expenses.
The Supreme Court last week permitted Mr. Banerjee to travel abroad for medical treatment for a period of three weeks. The MP's plea for an urgent hearing was based on this upcoming travel, as an unresolved freeze on his account could affect his preparations.
Freezing of bank accounts is a serious step that can be ordered by enforcement agencies under laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, or by banks themselves under certain circumstances, but generally requires due process to prevent misuse. The court's examination will determine whether the bank's action in this instance was lawful.
The case is likely to be heard on Wednesday, when the court will also consider whether the bank and other respondents need to file responses. Legal observers note that the outcome could hinge on whether the bank acted on its own or at the behest of an investigating agency, and whether prior mandatory procedures were followed.
This is a developing story and the court's ruling on Wednesday is expected to clarify the legal position. Until then, both the MP and the bank will await the court's directions.
