New Delhi, Jan 18: The Supreme Court has directed that a plea seeking directions to the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for freezing and de-freezing of bank accounts during cybercrime investigations be placed before the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti asked the apex court registry to obtain instructions from the CJI and list the matter before an appropriate bench after being informed that a CJI-led bench is already hearing a suo motu case related to digital arrests, in which similar issues are under consideration.
Recording the submission of Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, the court noted that prayers ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the plea are already the subject matter of a suo motu writ petition. “In view of the above, the registry to obtain appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India and post the matter accordingly,” the court said in its January 16 order.
Earlier, the top court had agreed to examine prayer ‘B’ of the plea, which seeks a direction that no bank account be frozen without a written, reasoned order and prior intimation to the account holder within 24 hours, along with mandatory reporting to the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 106(3) of BNSS or Section 102(3) of the CrPC.
Prayer ‘C’ seeks directions to the Centre and RBI to formulate a uniform SOP governing freezing and de-freezing of bank accounts during cybercrime probes to prevent arbitrary action and ensure procedural fairness across the country.
At the outset, Kaushik informed the bench that the Centre had not frozen the petitioners’ bank accounts, contrary to their allegations. On January 6, the court had directed that a copy of the plea be served on the Centre and listed the matter for further hearing.
The plea, filed by Vivek Varshney through advocate Tushar Manohar Khairnar, alleges arbitrary freezing of his bank accounts by the Tamil Nadu Police cyber cell without notice, communication or judicial approval, violating his fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21.
The petitioner claimed the freezing caused complete financial paralysis, affecting his ability to meet professional and personal obligations. The plea highlighted the absence of any uniform SOP, resulting in inconsistent practices across states, prolonged freezing and deprivation of financial rights without due process, and urged the court to frame guidelines to protect citizens from harassment. (Agencies)
