The Supreme Court of India is currently reviewing a plea concerning the freezing and de-freezing of bank accounts during cybercrime investigations, potentially leading to a more standardized process across the country. The court has directed that the plea be presented to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, especially given the Centre's information that a related matter concerning digital arrests is already under consideration by a bench led by the CJI.

The petition calls for the Centre and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to establish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that would govern the freezing and de-freezing of bank accounts in cases involving cybercrime. Currently, there is no uniform protocol in place, which results in inconsistent practices and potentially prolonged freezing periods for individuals across different states, thus depriving them of their financial rights without due process. The petitioner in the case, Vivek Varshney, alleges that cyber cells often freeze accounts arbitrarily, without prior notice, judicial oversight, or clear communication, leaving citizens in a state of financial distress, unable to access funds for daily needs.

The Supreme Court had previously agreed to examine the petition, particularly regarding the demand that no bank account should be frozen without a written, reasoned order, and that the account holder should be informed within 24 hours of such action. Furthermore, every freezing order should be immediately reported to the relevant jurisdictional magistrate, as mandated under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The plea also seeks the issuance of guidelines to all investigating agencies, including cyber cells, ensuring these safeguards are followed.

The lack of a uniform SOP can lead to several problems, including a lack of prior notice to account holders, differing procedures across states, and delays in de-freezing accounts even after investigations clear individuals. Petitioners argue that the arbitrary freezing of accounts violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty) and Article 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's intervention aims to balance the need to combat cybercrime with the protection of citizens' fundamental rights. The court's potential formulation of SOPs could ensure transparency, judicial oversight, and time-bound de-freezing of accounts, while still allowing authorities to act against fraudsters.