Freezing Entire Salary Account Over Suspicious Transactions Violates Right To Livelihood: MP High Court Grants Relief To Armed Force Personnel
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a serving Special Armed Force Personnel cannot be denied access to his legitimate salary merely because certain transactions in his bank account are under inquiry. Therefore, the bench directed the Bank to permit operation of the petitioner's salary account, except to the extent of the suspicious/disputed transactions, which may continue to remain...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a serving Special Armed Force Personnel cannot be denied access to his legitimate salary merely because certain transactions in his bank account are under inquiry.
Therefore, the bench directed the Bank to permit operation of the petitioner's salary account, except to the extent of the suspicious/disputed transactions, which may continue to remain under restraint subject to further orders by the investigating agency.
The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed,
"This Court is of the considered opinion that though the respondent Bank is bound to comply with lawful directions issued by the investigating agency, at the same time, complete restraint on operation of a salary account, particularly of a serving armed force personnel, without there being any material placed on record showing involvement of the entire account transactions in any criminal activity, caused serious prejudice to the fundamental right of livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner cannot be deprived of access to his legitimate salary amount required for maintenance of himself and his family merely because certain transactions are under enquiry".
The petitioner, a serving personnel of the Special Armed Force, had a salary account with SBI. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the said SBI account was illegally restrained following an alleged communication from the Cyber Cell. The counsel contended that his account was restrained despite the lack of any criminal case or departmental proceedings against the petition.
The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he repeatedly approached the bank for the release of his account; however, no satisfactory explanation was provided to him. The petitioner stated that he was deprived of his sole source of livelihood and therefore the actions of the respondents were violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel further contended that the actions of the respondents were arbitrary and illegal per Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
The counsel for the Bank, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner's account was restricted pursuant to the directions received from the concerned Cyber Cell/competent authority regarding suspicious transactions under enquiry. The bank further argued that they acted in strict compliance with statutory and regulatory obligations and had no malafide intention.
The court noted that the petitioner was a serving personnel of the Special Armed Force. The bench noted that the petitioner was deprived of his legitimate salary for a considerable period of time. Although the court acknowledged that the Bank imposed the restriction pursuant to directions from Cyber Cell.
The court also noted that despite the service of notice to Inspector of Cyber Cell (respondent no 2), none have appeared to justify the continuation of the complete freezing of the account.
The court noted that the action of the Bank, even though in compliance with lawful directions, has caused great prejudice to the fundamental right of livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions.
Case Title: Anuj Kumar Sharma v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-9453-2021
For Petitioner: Advocate Swapnil Sharma
For State: Government Advocate Manish Saxena
For SBI: Advocate Raju Sharma