The Delhi High Court intervened on behalf of a street vendor whose bank account was frozen due to a mere Rs 105 linked to a cyber fraud case. The court emphasized the vendor’s right to livelihood, ordering the Union Bank of India to de-freeze the account while marking a lien on the disputed amount, enabling him to continue his business.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has come to the aid of a street vendor whose livelihood was jeopardized after his bank account was frozen due to the credit of a mere Rs 105, allegedly linked to a cyber fraud case. The court directed the Union Bank of India to de-freeze the account, emphasizing the vendor’s fundamental right to livelihood.
The petitioner, a humble street vendor selling ‘chhole bhature’ in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, found his bank account frozen without prior notice. This account, crucial for his daily earnings, held Rs 1.22 lakh, which he could not access, leaving him unable to meet even basic expenses.
Justice Manoj Jain remarked:
“The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is an integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The court pointed out that there was no evidence suggesting the vendor’s involvement in the cyber fraud or that he knowingly received the funds illegally.
Acknowledging the hardship faced by the vendor, the court ordered the bank to “defreeze” the account while marking a lien of Rs 105, the disputed amount, ensuring the vendor could resume his business. The judge stated:
Read Also: Global Blocking Order Against Book on Baba Ramdev | X Warns of Dangerous Precedent
“This is being done to ensure that a small-scale vendor like petitioner herein is in a position to continue to do his business and there is no violation of his valuable right of livelihood.”
The bank was also instructed to inform the investigating agency about the marked lien, while permitting the vendor full access to the remaining funds in his account.
The investigating agency noted that the cyber fraud involved Rs 71,000, of which only Rs 105 landed in the vendor’s account. The court observed:
“There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was part of any conspiracy or a cyber criminal. He may not even be connected with the offence at all and might be an unintended beneficiary.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
