Delhi High Court grants relief to street vendor after his bank account blocked over suspect ₹105 transaction

The Delhi High Court recently directed Union Bank of India to de-freeze the savings bank account of a street vendor after it was blocked under the instructions of Andhra Police on suspicion of cyber-fraud [Pawan Kumar Rai Vs Union Of India & Anr. ].Justice Manoj Jain held that a total freeze on the bank account of the vendor was violative of his right to earn livelihood which is part of his right to life under Article 21. “Passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court noted. The street vendor, who sells chole-bhature in Delhi for ₹35 per plate, had approached the bank when he discovered that he was unable to operate his bank account.He was then informed by the bank that his account was frozen on the directions of Andhra Pradesh Police.This was after some unknown person had remitted a sum of ₹105 into his account and that amount was connected to some cyber fraud.Therefore, his entire bank account was frozen in terms of intimation received from the concerned investigating agency.The vendor then approached the High Court seeking directions to the bank to de-freeze his bank account..The vendor submitted he was neither aware of nor was he complicit in tje commission of any cyber-fraudHe further said that before freezing his bank account, he had not been given any prior intimation or an opportunity to be heard. Due to freezing of the account, he cannot use the balance savings to even meet the day-to-day expenses even though a balance of 1,22,556 is lying in his account, it was contended..The Court noted that continued freezing of the bank account could not be justified when there was no material to suggest his complicity and he was dependent on daily earnings to sustain himself.Furthermore, when the investigating agency has identified a specific sum credited to the bank account of the petitioner, it is difficult to comprehend as to why the entire bank account of the petitioner was blocked, the Court said."Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable," the Court held.Hence, it ordered de-freezing of the account subject to marking a lien on the disputed amount credited in his account, i.e. ₹105."Since the lien of ₹105 has been directed to be marked in his account, the petitioner, as a necessary corollary, would be permitted to operate his bank account in whatever manner he wants," the Court added..Advocates Anil Goel and Aditya Goel appeared for the petitioner.Senior Panel Counsel Amit Gupta with advocate Vidur Dwivedi appeared for Andhra Police.Advocates OP Gaggar and Sachindra Karn appeared for the bank.[Read Judgment]