High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions as stated above. Th...

Sulfikar v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date
2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition is disposed with the following directions: (a) The respondent bank must immediately request the Investigation Authority/Police to specify the amount to be frozen or held in lien, within one month from the date of this judgment. (b) If the Police specifies a particular amount, the bank shall confine the freeze to that amount and allow the petitioner to deal with the account beyond that limit. (c) If no information is received within two months, the petitioner may transact fully in his account, subject to any future information from the Police. (d) As an alternative, if the Police state that the entire account should be frozen, the bank will inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for up to eight months. (e) After eight months, the petitioner may approach this Court again for further directions. The contentions are kept open for future arguments, and the court emphasizes balancing investigational needs with the right to livelihood.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions as stated above. The court directed the bank to seek a specific freeze amount from the police, limit freezes accordingly if specified, allow full transactions if no amount is provided within two months, and consider an extended eight-month freeze only if the entire account is ordered to be frozen, with liberty to approach the Court after that period.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sulfikar

Respondents

  • Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi
  • Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre
  • Reserve Bank of India
  • The South Indian Bank

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Vishnuprasad Nair

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sunil Shankar A
  • • Vidya Gangadharan
  • • Sri. S. Manu, DSGI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns freezing of the petitioner Sulfikar's bank accounts in the wake of police requisitions. The Kerala High Court recalls its earlier decision in Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) wherein the Court held that blanket and indefinite freezes are deleterious and that banks must act in consonance with police requisitions while safeguarding account-holders' livelihood. In the present matter, the bank has received a blanket request to freeze all amounts in the petitioner's account without specifying a sum, prompting the challenge before this Court. The court notes that indefinite blanket freezes threaten livelihood and the banking system's credibility and emphasizes that freezing should be targeted and time-bound. Relying on the earlier decision, the Judge directs the Respondent Bank to immediately approach the Investigation Authority/Police to obtain the exact amount to be kept frozen or held in lien, and to do so within one month from the judgment. If the Police specifies a particular amount, the Bank must confine the freeze to that limit, allowing the petitioner to transact beyond it. If no information is provided within two months, the petitioner may transact fully, subject to any future police information. Alternatively, if the Police require total freeze, the Bank should inform the petitioner and continue the freeze for up to eight months, after which the petitioner may move this Court again. The judgment thus balances investigation with account-holder rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that a blanket freeze of the entire account, without specifying any amount, is unjustified and deleterious to livelihood. The Bank should act only to the extent required by police requisition and provide a quantified freeze, enabling normal account operations within safe limits. If police requisitions lack a specific amount, bank action should await clear specification while preserving the account holder's access.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (bank and authorities) argue the necessity to preserve funds pending investigation and to comply with police requisitions. They contend that blanket freezing can be unavoidable where precise figures are unavailable, and that reasonable limitations can be imposed once police specify the amount to be frozen.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India2024 (1) KLT 826PositiveThe Court anchors its directions on the precedent set in Dr. Sajeer, adopting a similar approach to avoid blanket, indefinite freezes and to require targeted, time-bound freezes based on police specifications.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sulfikar v Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` SULFIKAR AGED 37 YEARS S/O. PATHUMMA N.A., 6/255/B, AMBALATH HOUSE, VATTAMAVU ROAD, VALLISSERY, AVINISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT -, PIN – 680306. ``` ``` BY ADV VISHNUPRASAD NAIR ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, PIN – 110001. 2INDIAN CYBERCRIME COORDINATION CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO 5TH FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110001. 3THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RBI, BAKERY JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-, PIN – 695033 4THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK (SIBL0000376) ALKA BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 680001 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SUNIL SHANKAR A VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020) SRI.S.MANU, DSGI ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## `JUDGMENT` ``` In matters relating to the freezing of accounts, this Court has already delivered a judgment inDr.Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of ``` ``` India [2024 (1) KLT 826]. ``` ``` 2.In the aforesaid judgment, certain ``` ``` directions were issued to the respective ``` ``` Banks, as also the Police Authorities, to ``` ``` continue the freeze for a certain period of ``` ``` time and only to the extent which was ``` ``` requisitioned by the Police. ``` ``` 3.However, what makes this case ``` ``` different from the one that was considered by ``` ``` this Court in the aforesaid judgment, is that ``` ``` the requisitions received by the Bank are ``` ``` stated to contain no particular amount, but seek a complete and blanket debit freeze of ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024` ``` -3- ``` ``` all the amounts in credit therein. ``` ``` 4.The legal issues and the imperatives involved have already been discussed by this Court in Dr.Sajeer(supra). A blanket freeze indefinitely, and without any period of time being stipulated by the Police, is certainly deleterious, not only to the account holders but also to the system as a whole; and the view in this regard of this Court is clearly reflected in Dr.Sajeer (supra). ``` ``` 5.However, since the Bank is now ``` ``` incapacitated from allowing the operation of the accounts of the petitioner because the ``` ``` requisition issued to them do not contain any particular amount, I am certain that this ``` ``` Court is enjoined to deal with this matter, sufficientlyprotectingboththe ``` ``` investigation, as also the account holders. I ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024` ``` -4- ``` ``` am persuaded to such course because, the blanket freeze of an account, if it is not imperatively necessary, will be an affront to ``` ``` the rights of the account holders and ``` ``` impinges even their right to livelihood, ``` ``` since, in this era, everyone relies upon ``` ``` banking transactions as the primary source. ``` ``` In the afore circumstances, following ``` ``` Dr.Sajeer(supra), I dispose of this writ ``` ``` petition with the following directions: ``` ``` (a) The respondent Bank is directed to ``` ``` immediately issue a request to the Investigation Authority/Police Authority and ``` ``` seek the amount which is required to be kept ``` ``` in freeze or held in lien in the account of the petitioner. This shall be done by the Bank within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024` ``` -5- ``` ``` (b) In the event that the Investigating Officer/Police Authority responds to the afore requisition and mentions a particular amount, as being the sum that is required to be kept frozen or held in lien, then the ``` ``` respondent Bank will confine the freeze/lien ``` ``` to such an extent and allow the petitioner/account holder to deal with his account and transact therein beyond that limit. ``` ``` (c) On the contrary, if no information is ``` ``` receivedfromthePolice ``` ``` Authority/Investigating officer within a ``` ``` period of two months from the date on which the afore requisition was made by the respondent Bank, then they will allow the petitioner/account holder to transact fully in his account, notwithstanding the debit ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024` ``` -6- ``` ``` freeze requisition, subject to any further ``` ``` information to be received from the Police Authority/Investigating Officer in future. ``` - `(d) As an alternative, if the response` ``` from the Police Authority/Investigating ``` ``` Officer is that the entire account be frozen for any reason that is mentioned therein, thentheBankwillinformthe ``` ``` petitioner/account holder accordingly and ``` ``` continue the freeze in such a manner for a ``` ``` further period of eight months thereafter. ``` ``` (e)If, after a period of eight months, ``` ``` the requisition made by the Police ``` ``` Authorities - either to a particular sum or ``` ``` the full amount in the account of the account holder - is not withdrawn, then the ``` ``` petitioner/account holder will be at full liberty to approach this Court again; for ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024 ``` ``` -7- which purpose, all contentions in this writ petition are reserved to him to be impelled in future. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` ``` akv ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 5400 OF 2024 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5400/2024` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 24/05/2023 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER'S FIRM EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER'S CURRENT ACCOUNT DATED 15/1/2024 ```