Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 42626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Dhandapani, J
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre – Respondent
W.P.No.15976 of 2026 | WMP.No.17215 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Abel Selvakumar
For the Respondents: K.K.Muralidharan, V.Meghanathan
State authorities are required to consider individual representations and dispose of grievances regarding the blocking of telecommunication services on merits within a reasonable time frame to ensure natural justice and due process.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to restore a blocked mobile number and obtain details of any underlying complaints. The petitioner contended that the blocking was based on mala fide complaints lodged by third parties to harass and damage his reputation, with no prior notice or summons provided. The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court addressed the primary issue of procedural fairness regarding the blocking of telecommunication services. The court emphasized that the authority responsible for initiating the block must evaluate the grievance through a proper representation process, ensuring that the affected party is heard and that communications are issued to relevant service providers if the blockade is found to be unjustified. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to treat the petitioner's email communication as a formal representation, consider the grievance on merits, and communicate the decision within four weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks restoration of a blocked mobile number and disclosure of complaints. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court directs authorities to decide on the representation regarding mobile unblocking. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to unblock and restore the mobile number of the petitioner and to direct the second respondent to furnish the details of the complaint/FIR/CSR, if any.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel accepting notice for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) accepting notice for the third respondent. In view of the limited nature of relief this Court proposes to grant, notice to respondents 2, 4 and 5 is dispensed with and the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(i) The petitioner claims to be an educationist and social worker. He established Vivekananda Computers/ITI in 1992 and it was subsequently developed into a para medical college and later into a community college with various self employment oriented courses. He is also a founder of Vivekananda Educational Trust and has been running Vivekananda Nursery and Primary School from 2012. Further, he is serving as the State President of the Federation of Private School Associations. The petitioner was briefly associating with the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association earlier. But, later, he withdrew from it due to certain irregularities.
(ii) The petitioner was having one Airtel mobile number namely
9994992326 and has been continuously using the same for the past more than 20 years having more than 20,000 professional and personal contacts. On 20.3.2026, the petitioner was not able to make/receive phone calls through the said mobile number. Pursuant to that, even on the same day, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the fifth respondent. On 23.3.2026, the petitioner received an e-mail communication from the fifth respondent stating that the said mobile number has been blocked/suspended on the basis of an alleged cyber crime complaint. The fifth respondent also insisted to get a no objection certificate (NOC) from the third respondent for restoration of the mobile number.
(ii) On 24.3.2026, the petitioner sent a representation to the third respondent requesting to furnish the details of the complaint, if any and to issue the NOC to the fifth respondent in order to unblock the said mobile number. Further, on 25.3.2026, the petitioner’s representative also appeared before the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing (CCIW – CID), Vepery, Chennai-7 so as to know the status of the complaint. But, the officer concerned informed that no such complaint had been raised regarding blocking of the said mobile number of the petitioner.
(iii) On 26.3.2026, the petitioner’s representative approached the office of third respondent where it was informed that the second respondent blocked the petitioner’s mobile number on account of online financial fraud. Immediately on 27.3.2026, the petitioner sent a representation to the second respondent to issue the NOC to the fifth respondent for unblocking the petitioner’s mobile number. In addition, the petitioner lodged his grievance to the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances and it was also registered.
(iv) On 02.4.2026, the petitioner received an e-mail communication from the second respondent to send relevant documents regarding the blocked SIM, to which, the petitioner responded and sent all the relevant documents. On receipt of the documents from the petitioner, the second respondent contacted the petitioner through his alternative mobile number and stated that two complaints were received against the petitioner’s mobile number from one Mr.Arun Kumar and one Mr.Sekar.
(v) According to the petitioner, the said two individuals are the henchmen of one Mr.Arasakumar, who instituted C
