Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 77463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
T.R.Shakila – Appellant
Versus
The Manager, Indian Bank – Respondent
W.P.(MD).No.20095 of 2025|W.M.P.(MD).No.15461 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Pozhilan for M/s.C.Arulvadivel Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Karthik Standing Counsel
The court affirmed that blanket freezing of bank accounts without quantifying amounts violates fundamental rights and must be justified in light of investigations.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Mandamus to direct defreezing of bank account based on prior representations - Court refers to previous decisions where blanket freezing orders were deemed violative of fundamental rights of trade and livelihood.
(B) Cyber Crime Investigation - Directions regarding freezing and operation of bank accounts issued based on allegations of tainted transactions - Court reiterates the necessity for quantification of amounts before such actions.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a typist, faced account freeze without prior notice or fault, affecting her livelihood.
Findings of Court:
The Court deemed the bank's blanket freezing of the account inappropriate and ordered de-freezing of the petitioner's account while maintaining a minimum balance.
Issues: Significant issues included the constitutionality of the blanket freeze and the procedure followed leading to such action.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that freezing actions must be proportionate and justified, asserting that fundamental rights cannot be violated under the guise of investigation.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court addresses petitioner's inability to access their bank account. (Para 1 , 6) |
| 2. court refers to established precedents on account freezing procedures. (Para 2) |
| 3. court emphasizes the importance of quantifying amounts in freeze orders. (Para 4 , 7) |
| 4. petitioner claims harm due to unjustified account freeze. (Para 5) |
| 5. court rules to permit operation of the account under specified conditions. (Para 8) |
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. As a matter of fact, the issue is now covered by a decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.25631 of 2024 in the case of Mohammed Saifullah Vs. Reserve bank of India and others, dated 10.09.2024, wherein, this Court has referred to Circular Memorandum issued by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai dated 24.06.2021 bearing C.No.131/COP,GCP/Camp/2021, the content of which is extracted below:
3. This Court, in the above case, has observed as under:
“6. Unfortunately, in most of the cases the guidelines issued in this Circular not observed. Later when an identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in WP No. 13509 of 2024 considering the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inM.T.Enrica Lexie and another –vs- Doramma and others reported inMANU/SC/0409/2012, Teesta Atul Setalvad and others –vs- The State of Gujarat and others, reported in(2018) 2 SCC 372 andShento Varghese – vs- Julfikar Husen and others, reported in2024 SCC Online SC 895, directed the petitioner/account holder to execute a bond undertaking to deposit the amount in case the money found in his account is a tainted money and liable to be forfeited.
7. As far as the present case in hand, though the intimation from the Cyber Crime Bureau, Telangana, indicates that suspected money in the account of the petitioner is only a tune of Rs. 2,48,835/-, due to the blanket order to freeze the account, the fifth respondent Bank has freezed the account in its entirety. Therefore, the petitioner herein is unable to operate his account and deal with the money lying in his account. 8. Under the guise of investigation, order freezing the entire account without quantifying the amount and period cannot be passed. Such order will be construed as violation of the fundamental rights of trade and business as well as violation of livelihood. Therefore, it is appropriate to direct the fifth respondent to de-freeze the account and kept a lien over a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner herein is permitted to operate his account, subject to the condition that he shall ensure, the account shall always have a minimum of Rs.
2,50,000/-.
9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
4. This view has also been followed recently by this Court in W.P.
(MD).No.17966 of 2025 in the case of Nowsath Vs. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Chennai and others, dated 03.07.2025, wherein, the Writ Petition was disposed of in terms of the above order.
5. In the present case, the petitioner claims to be a Typist, who is employed by an Advocate practising before this Court and that all of a sudden, the petitioner's bank account was frozen. It is submitted that the petitioner has only a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the aforesaid account and for no fault of the petitioner, her account has been frozen.
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have acted pursuant to a communication received through e-mail from their headquarters based on a Cyber Police Complaint No.31912240174146 filed at the behest of one Majety Sambasiva Rao on 06.12.2024. It is submitted that the aforesaid communication itself calls upon the customer to contact the Law Enforcement Authority (LEA).
7. It is noticed that the communication was sent to the second respondent by the first respondent on 22.07.2025. However,
