Police Must Decide Wallet-Freeze Representations by Reasoned Order After Hearing

The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution concerning the blocking/freezing of her PhonePe Wallet.

She sought, among other reliefs, a direction requiring the police authority to consider her representations dated 4 July 2026 and 24 August 2026, disclose any pending FIR, complaint, investigation or other statutory action and the legal basis for the wallet restriction, and pass a reasoned order after giving her an opportunity to be heard.

The Court considered the matter at the admission stage and found it broadly covered by *Malcolm Murayis & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Others*, W.P. No. 1100 of 2024, decided on 26 April 2024.

1. Whether the police authority should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representations concerning the wallet restriction and issue a reasoned, speaking order after giving her an opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the principles in *Malcolm Murayis* broadly applied to the petitioner’s case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution provide the basis for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principles in *Malcolm Murayis*, where, in the context of bank-account freezes prompted by cybercrime agencies, the Court directed that disputed amounts be kept in fixed deposits pending orders of the competent Magistrate and referred to action under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C. or other applicable law.

In the present case, the Court adopted that decision only as broadly applicable and directed consideration of the petitioner’s representations through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Court considered the petitioner’s grievance about the wallet restriction and concluded, without setting out further factual findings, that the case was broadly governed by *Malcolm Murayis*.

It therefore granted the relief sought in paragraph 7(a) of the petition: the police authority must consider the two representations, disclose details of any existing FIR, complaint, investigation or other statutory action and the legal basis for the wallet restriction, give the petitioner an appropriate opportunity, and issue a reasoned order within a fixed period, preferably 30 days.

The Court did not expressly grant the separate requested reliefs for unblocking the wallet or transferring its balance.

No express direction was made to unblock the PhonePe Wallet or release its balance.