No judge of the Allahabad High Court passed the order dated August 14, 2026. Yet that Allahabad High Court Forged Order, which led the Union government to block at least 95 websites allegedly streaming fake IPL matches and running betting platforms, is now the subject of a criminal case registered by the Uttar Pradesh Police on the High Court’s own complaint.
Prayagraj: A fabricated order bearing the Allahabad High Court’s name, sent to the Department of Telecommunications and used to have at least 95 websites blocked, has now led the Uttar Pradesh Police to register an FIR against unknown persons, after an internal inquiry by the High Court found that no such order had ever been passed [In Re: Forged Allahabad High Court Website Blocking Order].
From a journalist’s email to a criminal case
The trail began, according to the complaint, with an email that reached the High Court on October 30, 2026. It came from a technology reporter with the news agency Reuters, who had found a blocking order on the Department of Telecommunications website and wanted the High Court to confirm it.
The blocking communication, dated September 2, 2026, rested on an order said to have been passed by Justice Garima Prashad of the Allahabad High Court. A person who identified himself as a senior advocate had forwarded that purported order to the department.
The registry could not trace the order on the High Court’s website. An internal inquiry followed and found that the order did not exist. The private secretary to Justice Garima Prashad also confirmed that no such order had been passed, and on these findings the High Court administration asked the police to register a formal case.
The complaint and the sections invoked
The FIR was registered on November 6, 2026, on a complaint filed by a Joint Registrar of the High Court. The complaint states that the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court had, on November 3, directed that a criminal case be registered in the matter.
The Joint Registrar sought an FIR against unknown persons in these words:
“Vide alleged order dated 14.08.2026, 95 websites have been ordered to be blocked (copy enclosed). It is apparent from the facts mentioned above that unknown person has committed the offence of forgery with intention of cheating, used the forged documents as genuine.”
The case is registered under Sections 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). These provisions deal with cheating, forgery, forgery of court records and public registers, forgery of valuable security and other documents, and using a forged document as genuine. The complaint also asked for registration “along-with other related provisions/sections of I.T. Act and other penal laws for the time being in force, against unknown person for forgery.”
A second court’s name, a second set of blocked sites
This is not the only instance. In July 2026, a similar purported order bearing the name of the Rajasthan High Court led to the blocking of at least 34 websites. That document, attributed to Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, was sent to the Department of Telecommunications by a person who identified himself as an Advocate-on-Record. Responding to a media query, the Rajasthan High Court said the order bearing its name “appears to be fraudulent” and did not exist on its server. Between them, the two purported orders led to the blocking of 129 websites.
Where the case stands
The FIR is at the investigation stage. The allegations in the complaint are yet to be tested, no accused has been identified, and LawChakra expresses no view on the merits of the case.
Why the matter matters
Government departments act on court orders in good faith, and website blocking directions are often executed quickly, without the order being checked against the issuing court’s records. The episode shows how a fabricated order, carrying a judge’s name and a court’s authority, could be used to take down dozens of websites without any judicial scrutiny at all.
By directing registration of a criminal case on the administrative side, the Allahabad High Court has treated the misuse of its name as a direct threat to the integrity of the justice system. The case also raises a practical question for the Department of Telecommunications and other authorities: whether every court order they act on should first be verified with the court that is said to have passed it.
Matter: FIR against unknown persons over forged Allahabad High Court website blocking order
Complainant: Joint Registrar, Allahabad High Court
Purported order: Dated August 14, 2026, falsely attributed to Justice Garima Prashad
Direction to register case: Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court, November 3, 2026
FIR registered: November 6, 2026
Sections: 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 340(2) BNS
