Point of Law: Safeguards have to be infused into process in ‘UPI’ system itself, especially when it is spear headed and recognised internationally as a vanguard initiative of India.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The Unified Payment Interface (UPI), has transformed the financial spectrum in India; and in particular, the manner in which people transact money. Its easy-to-use interface and ingrained security features, has made “UPI” the preferred mode of payment for millions of Indians, making it the fastest growing payments systems in the world.

2. However, like in many good initiatives, there are chinks in the armour - in a manner of speaking; Charlatans commit Cyber Crimes and create byzantine maze of accounts, through which ill-gotten wealth is moved and parked.

3. The National Cyber Crimes Portal (NCCP) has been set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs, under the aegis of the Indian Cyber Crime Co-ordination Centre, to enable any person - who becomes a victim of Cyber Crime, to register on the said portal; which then triggers an appropriate response and criminal investigation.

4. Unfortunately, a situation as afore has thrown the petitioners in these cases in the cross hairs of the Police and their Banks, because it appears to be alleged that some one, who had indulged in a cyber financial crime in another part of India, had transferred money to their account; consequent to which, the competent Investigating and Police Authorities issued advisory to their Banks to freeze their accounts.

5. The petitioners assert that they have literally caught between the “Devil and the Deep Sea” because, for one, they do not know why their accounts have been frozen and for the second, they are now facing incalculable loss in their business and unspeakable prejudice, with their accounts being rendered unavailable to them to operate, all because some unknown person, sitting in a far off and remote place in India or even abroad, is alleged to have made “UPI” transactions in their accounts as part of small trading or payment against services bona-fide rendered, including in restaurants and retail shops.

6. The petitioners assert that, on account of the orders of freezing of their accounts in this fashion, the trust of the business community in the ‘UPI’ system has been severely shaken; and therefore, pray that this Court come to their aid, issuing appropriate orders and safeguards.

7. In response, Sri. Dayasindhu Sreehari - learned Central Government Counsel, affirmed that the Ministry of Home Affairs had initiated and set up the ‘NCCP’ with the laudable intent to protect and offer succour to victims of Cyber Crimes and explained that when complaints are registered on it, it immediately generates an appropriate response from the jurisdictional investigating and Police Authorities. He predicated that the orders impugned in these cases - issued by various Police Authorities in other States in India - are necessary and imperative steps initiated by such Agencies to track the sums involved in Cyber Crimes, routed by the accused through different accounts. He argued that, therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs do not have any further role to play in this matter; and that this for the Police Authorities concerned to inform this Court whether the investigations are still continuing and if the orders freezing the accounts of the petitioners, require to be maintained.

8. On hearing Sri. Dayasindhu Sreehari as afore, I pointedly asked him why the account of an individual should be frozen fully, even when the requisition for the same - made by the Police Authorities concerned - refer to the alleged proceeds of crime involved. He submitted that he has no instruction in this regard, because such orders are issued by the Police Authorities and thus left it to this Court to take appropriate decision.

9. The afore so recorded, I am fully cognizant that this is not the stage for this Court to intervene in the manner, as has been pleaded by the petitioners because, the investigation into the various Cyber Crimes - which are the genesis of the orders impugned in these cases - are still underway. However, the petitioners, who, prima facie, are al