The Allahabad High Court criticized the Lucknow Cyber Cell for its handling of a complaint arising from a matrimonial dispute and asked the husband to explain why damages should not be imposed for an allegedly bogus complaint that led to the prolonged blocking of his wife’s mobile number.
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Lucknow Cyber Cell for its handling of a complaint that allegedly arose out of a matrimonial dispute. The Court also directed the woman’s husband to explain why damages should not be imposed upon him for allegedly causing a “bogus complaint” to be lodged, which ultimately resulted in the blocking of his wife’s mobile number for an extended period.
The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, which expressed serious dissatisfaction with the conduct of the cyber authorities and described the response submitted by the In-charge of the Cyber Cell, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow, as “very irresponsible.”
The matter came before the Court through a writ petition filed by Shraddha Pathak, who sought restoration of her mobile phone number after it had been blocked following a complaint lodged through the cyber grievance mechanism.
During the proceedings, the Court noted that the dispute appeared to have its roots in ongoing matrimonial discord between the petitioner and her husband, Abhishek Pathak. According to the Bench, the circumstances suggested that the complaint which led to the blocking of the mobile number may have been linked to the matrimonial conflict between the parties.
After examining the material placed on record, the Court observed that there appeared to have been a misuse of the cyber complaint system in the present case.
The Bench remarked,
“There is apparently a misuse in the petitioner’s case,”
The Court further observed that the husband appeared to have caused “some kind of a bogus complaint” to be lodged against the petitioner’s mobile number. The High Court expressed particular concern over the manner in which the Cyber Cell acted upon the complaint.
According to the Bench, officials mechanically invoked directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs relating to cyber complaints and the blocking, freezing, and debiting of data and accounts received through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
The Court noted that such directions were intended to combat genuine cyber frauds and online crimes, and not to become tools for settling personal scores arising from matrimonial disputes or other private disagreements. The judges observed that instead of conducting a careful examination of the complaint and verifying its legitimacy, the Cyber Cell appeared to have proceeded in a routine and mechanical manner, causing significant hardship to the petitioner.
One of the most striking aspects of the case was the prolonged blocking of the petitioner’s mobile number. The Court was informed that the number remained blocked for such an extended duration that the telecom service provider eventually reassigned it to another subscriber. When the petitioner later sought restoration of her number, authorities informed the Court that the number was no longer available because it had already been allotted to another customer.
The Bench found this explanation deeply unsatisfactory and emphasized that state authorities cannot deprive a citizen of essential communication services through careless or negligent administrative action. The Court observed that a citizen could not be subjected to such consequences merely because public authorities failed to act responsibly and diligently.
The Division Bench reserved particularly sharp criticism for the affidavit filed by the In-charge of the Cyber Cell, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow. It described the stand taken by the officer as “very irresponsible” and indicated that the authorities had failed to appreciate the seriousness of the consequences resulting from their actions.
The Bench highlighted that cyber complaint mechanisms have been established to protect citizens from online fraud and cybercrime, and not to facilitate harassment through unverified complaints.
Directions of the Court
Taking note of the circumstances surrounding the complaint, the High Court directed respondent Abhishek Pathak to file a counter-affidavit explaining why damages should not be imposed upon him.
The Court specifically sought an explanation regarding the alleged filing of a frivolous or false complaint that led to the blocking of the petitioner’s mobile number and the hardship that followed. The direction signals the Court’s willingness to consider compensation where abuse of legal or administrative processes causes wrongful injury to another person.
In an effort to remedy the situation, the High Court directed the In-charge of the Cyber Cell, Lucknow, to immediately coordinate with the concerned telecom operator, stated to be Jio Telecom Service Limited, and take all necessary steps for restoration of the petitioner’s mobile number. The officer has also been directed to submit a personal affidavit before the Court within one week detailing the steps taken in compliance with the Court’s directions.
The Bench further ordered that copies of its directions be served upon both the Cyber Cell official and the husband through the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, to ensure prompt compliance.
The case highlights the growing challenges associated with the misuse of cyber complaint platforms and the potential consequences of administrative action taken without adequate verification. The judgment also underscores the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to carefully scrutinize complaints before invoking coercive measures that may affect an individual’s rights and access to essential services.
Case Title: Smt. Shraddha Pathak v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
