Court raps Lucknow cyber cell after man’s ‘bogus’ complaint costs wife her mobile number

Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena were informed that the telecom company had already allotted the number to another subscriber.

Bogus complaint: Court

• He has relied upon some order of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India regarding blocking, debiting, freezing data received through the Cyber Portal. These are orders, which are not meant to be misused.
• There is apparently a misuse in the petitioner’s case, who has a matrimonial discord with her husband and it is the husband, who has caused some kind of a bogus complaint to be lodged, in connection whereof the Cyber Cell has mechanically invoked the Home Ministry’s order to block the petitioner’s phone number, for such a long period of time, that it has been allotted to someone else.
• The petitioner wants her number restored but the In-charge Cyber Cell now says that the telecom company has assigned it to some other customer.
• Citizen cannot be wronged in this manner by a ‘callous handling by the state agencies’.

Order to restore number

Taking note of the situation, the court directed the in-charge of the cyber cell to immediately coordinate with the telecom operator concerned and take steps to restore the petitioner’s mobile number.

“The In-Charge, Cyber Cell, Commissioner, Lucknow will take immediate steps for restoration of the petitioner’s mobile number after getting in touch with the Telecom Service Provider/ Mobile Service Company concerned, which appears to be JIO Telecom Service Limited, and file his own affidavit after taking necessary steps within a week,” the court said.

The officer has been directed to file a fresh personal affidavit within a week detailing the action taken.

The bench also issued notice to the petitioner’s husband and asked him to explain why damages should not be imposed for allegedly lodging a frivolous complaint that led to the blocking of his wife’s mobile number.

“The fifth respondent shall also file a counter affidavit, showing cause as to why for lodging a frivolous complaint against his wife’s phone number, damages should not be awarded,” the ruling stated.

The court issued notices to the state authorities, with the additional government advocate being granted two weeks to file a counter-affidavit.

Man’s mobile phone seized for recording court proceedings

In another case, Rajasthan High Court issued a contempt notice to a man who was caught recording the court proceedings on his mobile phone without permission.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the recording of the court proceedings constituted contempt of court and ordered the seizure of the mobile phone.

“Recording of the court proceedings, as indicated above, constitutes a contempt of court as it amounts to interference with the administration of justice and also it lowers down the dignity of this court”, the court remarked in its order dated May 11.

The court noted that Rule 3(vi) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, expressly prohibits the recording of court proceedings in any manner.

“The said Rule lays down that there shall be no unauthorised recording of the proceedings by any person or entity,” the court observed.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case where it had held that the law of contempt has been enacted to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process and if such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society itself.

The court asserted that the contempt in the case was of such a nature that it substantially interfered with the due course of justice.

The court therefore directed the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner and his driver. It further directed the registrar (judicial) to lodge a report against the driver and ordered seizure of his phone.