In a significant ruling on December 17, 2024, the Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of freezing bank accounts in the case of Pawan Kumar Rai vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case Overview
Pawan Kumar Rai, a street vendor selling chhole-bhature in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, discovered on October 1, 2024, that he could not operate his savings account with Union Bank of India. Upon inquiry, he learned that his account had been frozen following instructions from the Anantapur IV Town Police Station in Andhra Pradesh. The freeze was due to a ₹105 deposit linked to a cyber-fraud investigation involving ₹71,000.
Rai contended that he was unaware of any fraud and had received no prior notice before the account freeze, which left him unable to access his funds totaling ₹1,22,556, thereby jeopardizing his daily livelihood.
Court’s Observations
Justice Manoj Jain emphasized that freezing an entire bank account over a disputed amount as minimal as ₹105 was disproportionate and infringed upon the individual’s fundamental rights. The court noted that such actions adversely impact a person’s right to earn and live with dignity, integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment highlighted the absence of evidence linking Rai to the cybercrime, questioning the necessity of freezing the entire account.
Judgment and Implications
The court directed Union Bank of India to de-freeze Rai’s account, permitting him to resume his business activities. However, it allowed the bank to mark a lien on the disputed ₹105 to safeguard the investigation’s interests.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting individual rights against administrative actions that may be excessive or unjustified. It also serves as a precedent for law enforcement and financial institutions to exercise due diligence and proportionality when restricting access to individuals’ financial resources.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in the Pawan Kumar Rai case reaffirms the importance of balancing investigative imperatives with the fundamental rights of individuals. It highlights the necessity for authorities to adopt a measured approach, ensuring that actions like freezing bank accounts do not disproportionately harm innocent individuals’ livelihoods.
For those facing similar challenges, this judgment offers hope and a legal precedent to seek redressal, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights.
For expert guidance on similar issues, feel free to connect with Adarsh Singhal, Advocate at Rajasthan High Court, and Cyber Expert. Email: contact@advocateadarsh.com | legal@advocateadarsh.com | Phone: 9352459744.