Delhi High Court Upholds Street Vendor's Right to Livelihood Amid Bank Account Freezing

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court ordered the de-freezing of a street vendor's bank account, which had been frozen due to a ₹105 credit linked to a cyber fraud investigation. The court emphasized that such actions, without substantial evidence of the vendor's involvement in the fraud, infringe upon the fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a street vendor selling chhole-bhature in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, discovered in October 2024 that he was unable to operate his savings account with Union Bank of India. Upon inquiry, he learned that his account had been frozen because ₹105 had been credited from an account associated with a cyber fraud involving ₹71,000. The vendor, who had approximately ₹1.22 lakh in his account, asserted that he had no knowledge of the fraudulent activity and had not received any prior notice regarding the freezing of his account. He speculated that the ₹105 might have been a legitimate payment from a customer purchasing three plates of chhole-bhature at ₹35 per plate.

Court's Analysis and Judgment

Justice Manoj Jain presided over the case, focusing on whether freezing the entire bank account over a ₹105 transaction was justified, especially when there was no evidence linking the vendor to the cyber fraud. The court noted that such an action had serious implications, encroaching upon the vendor's right to earn a livelihood and live with dignity. The judgment stated, "The impugned action, in essence, amounts to a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner, as it directly undermines his right to livelihood, which is an integral part of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

The court found no justification for freezing the entire account, especially when the investigating agency had identified the specific amount in question. It directed the bank to de-freeze the account, allowing the vendor to continue his business and sustain his family. To safeguard the investigation, the court permitted the bank to mark a lien restricted to the disputed amount of ₹105. This approach ensures that the vendor's right to livelihood is protected while allowing the investigation to proceed.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the enforcement of law with the protection of individual rights. By highlighting the disproportionate impact of freezing an entire bank account over a minimal amount, the court emphasized the need for investigative agencies to exercise restraint and consider the broader consequences of their actions on individuals' lives. The judgment serves as a precedent, reminding authorities to adopt measures that are proportionate and justifiable, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's decision reflects a commitment to upholding constitutional rights, ensuring that enforcement actions do not disproportionately harm individuals, particularly those dependent on daily earnings for survival. By ordering the de-freezing of the vendor's bank account, the court reinforced the principle that the right to livelihood is paramount and must be protected against undue infringement.

Court Practice Community

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community