Prayagraj/Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has sharply criticized the functioning of the Lucknow Cyber Cell after a woman’s mobile number remained blocked for an extended period following what the court described as an apparently dubious complaint linked to a matrimonial dispute.
Hearing a petition filed by Shraddha Pathak, a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena expressed serious concern over the manner in which cyber authorities handled the matter. The court also asked the petitioner’s husband, Abhishek Pathak, to explain why damages should not be imposed on him if it is established that he was responsible for initiating a false complaint that resulted in the blocking of his wife’s mobile number.
The case revolves around a complaint lodged through the cyber grievance mechanism, which led to the suspension of Shraddha Pathak’s mobile number. During the proceedings, the court observed that the dispute appeared to stem from ongoing marital discord and suggested that the cyber complaint system may have been misused to settle personal differences.
The bench remarked that cybercrime reporting mechanisms are intended to combat genuine online fraud and cyber offences, not to become instruments in private disputes. The judges noted that authorities appeared to have acted mechanically without adequately verifying the complaint before taking action.
The court was particularly critical of the response submitted by the In-Charge of the Cyber Cell, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow, describing the affidavit filed before the court as “highly irresponsible.” It observed that officials had relied on standard procedures meant for tackling cyber frauds without properly assessing whether the complaint warranted such action.
One of the most significant concerns raised by the court was that the mobile number remained blocked for so long that the telecom operator eventually reassigned it to another subscriber. As a result, when the petitioner sought restoration of her number, she was informed that it was no longer available.
Calling the situation unacceptable, the court emphasized that state agencies cannot deprive a citizen of access to an essential communication service through negligent or careless administrative action. The judges underscored that public authorities have a duty to exercise caution before taking steps that may significantly affect an individual’s rights and daily life.
Taking a serious view of the matter, the court directed Abhishek Pathak to file a counter-affidavit explaining his role in the complaint and why compensation should not be awarded to the petitioner for the hardship allegedly caused.
The High Court also instructed the Cyber Cell’s In-Charge to immediately coordinate with the concerned telecom service provider to explore restoration of the mobile number. The officer has been asked to submit a personal affidavit within a week detailing the actions taken in compliance with the court’s directions.
Further, copies of the court’s order have been directed to be served upon both the Cyber Cell official and the petitioner’s husband through the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s office in Lucknow to ensure prompt implementation.
The case highlights growing concerns over the misuse of cyber complaint platforms and serves as a reminder that law enforcement agencies must carefully verify complaints before initiating actions that can have far-reaching consequences for citizens. The High Court’s observations reinforce the principle that administrative powers must be exercised responsibly and that individuals should not suffer due to procedural lapses or unverified allegations.
