The Supreme Court has directed that a plea seeking a uniform SOP for freezing and de-freezing bank accounts during cybercrime investigations be placed before CJI Surya Kant. The petition raises concerns over arbitrary account freezes without notice, citing violations of constitutional rights and lack of procedural safeguards.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has directed that a petition seeking clear rules on freezing and unfreezing of bank accounts during cybercrime investigations be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for appropriate directions.
A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti passed the order after the Centre informed the Court that a similar issue is already being examined by a CJI-led Bench in a suo motu case related to digital arrests.
Recording the submission made on behalf of the Union government, the Court said:
“Anil Kaushik, ASG further submits that as far as prayers ‘B’ and ‘C’ are concerned, they are the subject matter of consideration before another bench of this Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Crl.) No…. In view of the above, the registry to obtain appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India and post the matter accordingly,”
The order was passed on January 16.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had agreed to examine the petition, especially prayer ‘B’, which seeks a direction that no bank account should be frozen without a written and reasoned order.
It also seeks mandatory intimation to the account holder within 24 hours of such freezing and requires that every such order be immediately reported to the jurisdictional magistrate, as required under Section 106(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Prayer ‘C’ of the petition seeks directions to the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India to frame a uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for freezing and de-freezing of bank accounts during cybercrime investigations. The aim is to prevent arbitrary action by authorities and ensure procedural fairness across the country.
At the very beginning of the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik informed the Court that the Centre had not frozen the bank accounts of the petitioners, who had alleged that their accounts were frozen without any prior intimation.
Earlier, on January 6, the Supreme Court had directed that a copy of the petition be served on the Centre within three days and had listed the matter for hearing the following week.
The petition also seeks issuance of guidelines to all investigating agencies, including cyber cells across India, to ensure that no bank account is frozen without a written and reasoned order and without informing the account holder within 24 hours.
The plea has been filed by petitioner Vivek Varshney through advocate Tushar Manohar Khairnar. Varshney has claimed that he was aggrieved by the “arbitrary freezing/holding” of his bank account(s) by the Cyber Cell of the Tamil Nadu Police, allegedly without any prior notice, communication, or judicial approval.
He has argued that this action violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
According to the petitioner, the freezing of his bank account resulted in complete financial paralysis and prevented him from fulfilling both professional and personal responsibilities, including payment of essential expenses, taxes, and other liabilities.
The plea states:
“It is respectfully submitted that Section 106(3) of BNSS/ 102(3) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that any seizure or freezing of property must be forthwith reported to the jurisdictional magistrate. However, in the instant case, no such compliance has been made. The action of the respondents is, therefore, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and unconstitutional,”
The petition further points out that there is currently no uniform procedure or Standard Operating Protocol (SOP) governing the freezing and unfreezing of bank accounts during cybercrime or financial investigations.
It highlights:
“Consequently, citizens across different states are subjected to inconsistent practices, prolonged freezing periods, and deprivation of their financial rights without due process.
“Hence, this court’s indulgence is sought to (i) direct the immediate defreezing of the petitioner’s account(s); and (ii) frame uniform guidelines to ensure procedural safeguards, proportionality, and accountability in all future actions of this nature,”
Varshney has stated that his bank account was allegedly frozen due to a transaction related to the sale of jewellery. He argued that his writ petition seeks the formulation of a clear rule that unless an account holder is proven to be directly involved in a crime, their entire bank account — or an amount exceeding what is allegedly involved in the offence — should not be frozen merely because a suspicious transaction is linked to it.
Highlighting the growing number of such cases, the petition urged the Court to step in, stating:
“Recognising the increasing frequency of such cases”,
the plea requested the Supreme Court to
“formulate guidelines to save the common man from suffering from unnecessary harassment”.
It also sought a specific direction that:
“the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to formulate a uniform policy and standard operating procedures (SOPs) in the cases of similar nature where cyber cell issues notices freezing accounts”.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Cybercrime SOP
