Karnataka High Court directs crackdown on unauthorised SIM activation, asking the Director General of Police, Cyber Command, and telecom operators to tighten verification, while refusing to quash a criminal case against a Jio promoter accused of holding SIM cards activated in other people’s names.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings against a telecom promoter accused of possessing SIM cards activated on customers’ identity documents, and used the occasion to issue wide-ranging preventive directions to the Cyber Command of the Karnataka Police and to telecom operators including Jio and Vodafone on unauthorised activation and circulation of SIM cards [Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the oral order on September 29, 2026 in CRL.P No. 303 of 2025, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 528 of the BNSS). Advocate T. Vijay Kumar appeared for the petitioner and High Court Government Pleader N. Ranjith Kumar for the State. The allegations against the petitioner are untested, and the Court recorded that no finding of guilt is being made.
How the case reached here
HAL police station registered a suo motu FIR on September 8, 2022, on information that the petitioner, a promoter for Jio, had used customers’ Aadhaar details and photographs to obtain unauthorised activation of SIM cards. The charge sheet alleges that he retained 55 Jio SIM cards and 20 Vodafone SIM cards activated in other persons’ names and tried to sell them above the normal price. The offences invoked are Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case is pending as C.C. No. 26756/2024 before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
The petitioner argued that his possession of the cards was lawful and incidental to his work, that a Jio Area Manager had stated that promoters receive only non-activated SIMs, and that no sale was completed and he had not activated any card.
Why the Court declined to quash
The Court noted that the petitioner’s employment with Jio does not, at this stage, explain his possession of 20 Vodafone SIM cards, and that authority to sell non-activated cards does not by itself confer authority to hold activated cards belonging to others. It observed that use of another person’s Aadhaar particulars may have consequences beyond a mere irregularity, and that intent, knowledge and dealings with the persons concerned require evidence at trial.
“No finding can be recorded in the present proceedings that the petitioner has committed cyber fraud.”
The Court added that quashing powers are not ordinarily used to appreciate disputed evidence in detail, and that each offence must satisfy its own statutory ingredients, which the trial court will examine. It held that the proceedings did not warrant interference at this stage and dismissed the petition.
The directions
Explaining that SIM cards underpin digital identity, one-time passwords and financial services, so that misuse carries real risks, the Court asked the DGP, Cyber Command, to examine how unauthorised activation is detected and prevented, to ask jurisdictional police to examine credible information promptly, and to consider whether multiple SIMs activated with third-party particulars point to wider patterns needing coordinated investigation.
The Cyber Command was also asked to issue directions to operators including Jio and Vodafone to review how promoters and distributors are appointed and supervised, to track the custody and movement of non-activated SIMs, to reconcile SIMs supplied to intermediaries against those sold, to monitor unusual activation patterns, to strengthen customer verification, to give customers an accessible way to report suspected misuse, to consider informing affected customers and correcting records, and to train intermediaries on the limits of their role and the consequences of violations.
Safeguards and next date
The Court made the directions subject to safeguards. They must comply with telecom, data protection and disclosure laws, must not compromise the rights of employees, promoters or distributors against whom allegations are not established, and cannot be read as authorising indiscriminate surveillance. They are preventive and not a finding that the petitioner is guilty.
“Nothing in these directions shall be construed as authorising indiscriminate surveillance.”
The matter has been relisted on November 27, 2026 for the DGP, Cyber Command, to report compliance, and the High Court Government Pleader has been asked to inform the DGP of the order.
Why the order matters
The order uses a routine quashing petition to address a systemic gap: pre-activated SIM cards in circulation can hide the real user and hamper investigation of cyber offences. By pairing the directions with express safeguards for intermediaries and customers, it seeks stronger verification without presuming guilt of those who handle SIM stock.
Case Title: Mallikarjuna v. State of Karnataka, State by HAL Police Station [CRL.P No. 303 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate T. Vijay Kumar for the petitioner; HCGP N. Ranjith Kumar for the State