Calcutta HC rebukes bank over Abhishek Banerjee account freeze
Synopsis
The Calcutta High Court has rebuked a bank for freezing Abhishek Banerjee's accounts without notice, exposing a string of shifting justifications — from KYC deadlines that haven't expired, to internal technical glitches, to an Enforcement Directorate link the bank refused to explain in open court. A second hearing the same day will test whether the bank can offer a coherent defence.
Key Takeaways
The Calcutta High Court on 20 August rebuked bank authorities for imposing debit restrictions on Abhishek Banerjee's accounts without prior notice.
Abhishek Banerjee , TMC general secretary and Diamond Harbour MP, also had two credit cards blocked ahead of a Supreme Court-cleared US medical trip .
The bank offered at least three shifting explanations — KYC expiry, internal technical issues, and an ED-linked document concern — each rejected or questioned by Justice Krishna Rao .
Justice Rao noted that KYC updating can be done online and that imposing restrictions without intimation was not acceptable.
Bank authorities have been directed to clarify their position in a second hearing on the afternoon of 20 August .
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court on Thursday, 20 August sharply rebuked bank authorities for imposing debit restrictions on the accounts of Abhishek Banerjee, the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) general secretary and Diamond Harbour Lok Sabha member, describing the grounds cited as apparently flimsy. The matter is scheduled for a second hearing later the same day, when bank officials will be required to formally justify their decision.
Background to the Dispute
Abhishek Banerjee, nephew of former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, approached the court's single-judge bench of Justice Krishna Rao earlier this week. His petition alleged that bank authorities had imposed debit restrictions on his account and blocked two of his credit cards — all without prior intimation — ahead of a US tour for ophthalmic treatment that the Supreme Court had already cleared earlier this month.
The Bank's Shifting Explanations
During the first half of Thursday's hearing, the bank's counsel initially told the court that the debit restrictions were imposed for KYC (Know Your Customer) updating purposes. Banerjee's counsel, Ayan Bhattacharya, immediately challenged this, pointing out that the current KYC term is not due to expire until December — making the sudden restriction difficult to justify.
Justice Rao then questioned why the Diamond Harbour MP needed to be physically present at the bank when KYC updating can be completed online. The bank's counsel responded that internal technical problems necessitated an in-person visit — an explanation the court found unsatisfactory.
The bank's counsel then offered a third explanation: that because Abhishek Banerjee's name, phone number, and documents were linked to a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), KYC updating was required, and the bank was not in a position to disclose further details in open court. This explanation visibly irked Justice Rao, who warned the bank's counsel against repeatedly shifting the stated reason for the action.
Court's Observation
Justice Rao observed that imposing debit restrictions without prior intimation to the account holder was not acceptable. He directed the bank authorities to appear again in the second half of Thursday and present a consistent, clarified position on their decision.
What Comes Next
The afternoon hearing will be a critical moment for the bank, which must now reconcile its contradictory explanations before the court. The case sits at the intersection of banking regulation, ED proceedings, and the rights of an account holder — with a court already on record expressing displeasure at the manner in which the restrictions were applied. How the bank responds could shape the immediate relief available to Abhishek Banerjee ahead of his court-cleared medical travel.
Point of View
Defensible rationale; offering contradictory explanations in sequence signals either poor internal coordination or an action taken without adequate legal grounding. The ED angle, raised and then shielded from open-court scrutiny, adds a layer of opacity that the court was right to flag. For account holders more broadly, this case is a reminder that KYC compliance windows are often weaponised as a procedural pretext — and that the judiciary remains a meaningful check when that happens.
NationPress
20 Aug 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Calcutta High Court rebuke the bank in the Abhishek Banerjee case?
The Calcutta High Court rebuked the bank because it imposed debit restrictions and blocked two credit cards on Abhishek Banerjee's accounts without prior notice, and then offered shifting, inconsistent justifications in court. Justice Krishna Rao found the grounds cited — including KYC updating — to be apparently flimsy.
What reasons did the bank give for freezing Abhishek Banerjee's accounts?
The bank offered at least three explanations: first, that KYC updating was required; second, that internal technical problems necessitated a physical visit; and third, that Banerjee's name and documents were linked to an Enforcement Directorate case. Justice Rao was unsatisfied with each explanation and told the bank's counsel not to keep changing its stated reason.
Who is Abhishek Banerjee and why does this case matter?
Abhishek Banerjee is the general secretary of the All India Trinamool Congress and the Lok Sabha member from Diamond Harbour, West Bengal. He is also the nephew of former Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The case matters because his accounts were frozen ahead of a US medical trip that the Supreme Court had already approved, raising questions about the bank's conduct.
What is the KYC argument and why did the court reject it?
The bank claimed KYC updating was the reason for the debit restrictions, but Banerjee's counsel pointed out that the current KYC term does not expire until December. Justice Rao also questioned why an in-person visit was needed when KYC can be updated online, further undermining the bank's position.
What happens next in the Abhishek Banerjee bank account case?
A second hearing was scheduled for the afternoon of 20 August, where bank authorities are required to present a clear and consistent explanation for their decision. The outcome of that hearing could determine whether the debit restrictions on Banerjee's accounts are lifted.
