UP Police Registers FIR Over Fake High Court Orders Blocking Betting Sites

• Uttar Pradesh Police registered an FIR against unidentified individuals for forging High Court orders.
• Two fake judicial orders, one from Allahabad High Court and one from Rajasthan High Court, led to the blocking of 129 betting websites by the Department of Telecommunications.
• The forged Allahabad High Court order was attributed to Justice Garima Prashad and directed the blocking of 95 sites.
• The FIR includes sections from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act.
• Both High Courts confirmed the orders were fraudulent and not in their records, despite appearing official with seals and a QR code.

This development highlights a critical risk of government agencies acting on forged judicial orders, impacting businesses through illegitimate website blocking.

Uttar Pradesh police have initiated an investigation by registering a First Information Report (FIR) against unidentified individuals for allegedly fabricating judicial orders that led to the blocking of numerous online betting platforms. This action follows a complaint lodged by the Allahabad High Court administration on November 6, which detailed the discovery of a forged court order. The complaint arose after an internal review by the High Court confirmed the non-existence of any such directive in its official records.

The broader issue came to light through a journalistic investigation, which revealed that the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) had issued directives to block 129 websites based on two distinct, yet equally fraudulent, high court orders. One of these purported orders was attributed to the Allahabad High Court, while the other falsely claimed to originate from the Rajasthan High Court. Both judicial bodies subsequently confirmed that no such orders could be found within their respective official databases.

Specifically, the fabricated Allahabad High Court order, dated August 14, 2026, was presented as a ruling by Justice Garima Prashad in Writ Petition No. 30480 of 2026. This document purportedly mandated the blocking of 95 websites engaged in betting and gambling activities. Advocate Kartikey Pandey reportedly forwarded this fraudulent document to the DoT, which then, on September 2, instructed internet service providers to restrict access to these sites. Similarly, a separate forged order, ostensibly from the Rajasthan High Court, was used to block 34 betting websites in July. This document was allegedly transmitted to the DoT by Aryan Chaudhary, an advocate-on-record, prompting the department to issue its first blocking directive on July 21, just two days after receiving the email. Both fake orders were designed to appear legitimate, featuring official court seals, the national emblem, and in the case of the Allahabad High Court order, a QR code that, when scanned, led to an unrelated webpage.

The Uttar Pradesh Police's FIR, filed against unknown individuals, cites multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, and 340(2), alongside relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act. This comprehensive legal framework underscores the gravity of the alleged offenses, which involve not only forgery but also the misuse of official channels to effect significant regulatory actions. As of November 11, no arrests had been made in connection with the ongoing investigation.

The discovery of these fraudulent orders highlights a critical vulnerability in the process of regulatory enforcement. The Allahabad High Court administration's verification process, initiated after a news agency sought to confirm the authenticity of a document found on the DoT's official website, was instrumental in exposing the scam. The private secretary to Justice Garima Prashad also explicitly confirmed that the judge had not issued any such order, further solidifying the evidence of forgery. The Rajasthan High Court registrar similarly declared the order attributed to their court as fraudulent and absent from their server.

This incident underscores a significant risk where government agencies, such as the Department of Telecommunications, may inadvertently act upon forged judicial orders, leading to illegitimate website blocking and substantial operational impacts on businesses. The fact that the DoT uploaded these blocking directions and their accompanying fraudulent documents to its official website further complicates the situation, potentially lending an air of authenticity to illegitimate directives.

The widespread blocking of 129 betting websites based on these fake High Court orders demonstrates the potential for malicious actors to manipulate official processes. This development highlights a critical risk of government agencies acting on forged judicial orders, impacting businesses through illegitimate website blocking. It necessitates a heightened level of scrutiny and due diligence from all parties involved in regulatory compliance and enforcement, particularly when directives are predicated on court orders.

This development highlights a critical risk of government agencies acting on forged judicial orders, impacting businesses through illegitimate website blocking. Lawyers and compliance officers must advise clients on the heightened need for due diligence when receiving or acting upon regulatory directives, especially those based on court orders, and be prepared to challenge actions stemming from potentially fraudulent documents. It also underscores the criminal implications for individuals involved in forging such orders, falling under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Source: Original reporting via Reuters