The Delhi High Court recently instructed Union Bank of India to defreeze the savings account of a street vendor, which had been blocked by the bank following directions from Andhra Police due to suspicions of cyber fraud.

Justice Manoj Jain ruled that the complete freezing of the street vendor's bank account violated his right to earn a livelihood, which is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Passing of an order of freezing the entire bank account of the petitioner has a serious and adverse implication and invades and encroaches upon his invaluable right to earn and live with dignity. The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the Court noted.

Case Brief:

The street vendor, who sells chole-bhature in Delhi for ₹35 per plate, approached his bank after finding that he could no longer access his account. Upon inquiry, the bank informed him that his account had been frozen on the instructions of the Andhra Pradesh Police. This action was taken after an unknown person deposited ₹105 into his account, which was allegedly linked to a cyber fraud. As a result, his entire account was frozen based on the notification from the investigating agency. The vendor then sought the intervention of the High Court, requesting directions for the bank to unfreeze his account.

The vendor argued that he was neither aware of nor involved in any cyber fraud. He further claimed that his bank account was frozen without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. He emphasized that, despite having a balance of ₹1,22,556 in his account, he was unable to use the funds for his daily expenses due to the freeze.

The Court observed that the continued freezing of his account could not be justified in the absence of any evidence linking him to the crime, especially considering his reliance on daily earnings for survival.

The Court also questioned why the entire account was frozen when only a specific sum had been identified as linked to the fraud.

"Thus, the continued freezing of the entire bank account of the petitioner, without even hinting that the petitioner was either mastermind or accomplice in the cybercrime or knowingly received the funds as part of any illegal activity will not be justifiable and sustainable," the Court held.

Therefore, the Court ordered the de-freezing of the vendor's account, with the condition that a lien be marked on the disputed sum of ₹105 credited to his account.