Bombay HC Grants Ex Parte Relief After Hacker Demands USD 750,000 Ransom Over Children's Sensitive Data
A hacker calling itself a “cyber criminal” breached databases of an educational trust, demanded USD 750,000, then leaked children's mental health records to a parent.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted ex parte ad interim relief on 12 June 2026 to Pratiksha Foundation Charitable Trust, an educational trust running institutions in which thousands of children are enrolled. Justice Arif S. Doctor, sitting singly in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, acted after being shown that an unidentified defendant had hacked the trust's databases, demanded a ransom of USD 750,000, and — when the demand went unmet — had already begun leaking highly sensitive information about children, including details of their mental health conditions, to at least one parent. The court found the disclosure “most disturbing” and concluded that a case for ex parte relief had been made out.
The Breach and the Ransom Demand
According to submissions made by Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Counsel for the trust, the databases that were compromised contained confidential information about the children enrolled in the trust's educational institutions. That information included the children's daily movement details — when and from where they travel to school — as well as medical records covering mental health conditions. The databases also held details of parents' vocations, income, and other personal particulars.
On 12 May 2026, Defendant No. 1 sent an e-mail to the trust demanding USD 750,000. The e-mail described Defendant No. 1 as a “cyber criminal” and set out a stage-wise plan for enforcing the threat if the ransom was not paid. Dr. Saraf submitted that on legal advice, the trust engaged with Defendant No. 1 only to try to ascertain its identity. During that correspondence, the trust had even made an offer to pay certain sums. That correspondence was not annexed to the plaint at the time of hearing; Dr. Saraf undertook to file an affidavit placing the entire exchange on record within two weeks, and the court accepted that undertaking.
The Triggering Event: Leak to a Parent
The immediate reason the trust filed the suit on an urgent basis was an e-mail sent by Defendant No. 1 on 10 June 2026 to one of the parents. That e-mail divulged highly confidential information about several children, with a particular focus on their mental health issues. Justice Doctor reviewed the e-mail with the assistance of Dr. Saraf and recorded his finding in plain terms.
The court observed that the disclosure of such sensitive information about children's mental health “could indeed have grave and deleterious effects, in particular on the children themselves.” It further noted that the data in Defendant No. 1's possession — covering parental income, vocation, and the daily movements of children — if made public, could pose a grave risk to the physical safety of the children.
Why the Court Acted Without Notice
Dr. Saraf moved the application for urgent ad interim relief on an ex parte basis, arguing that giving notice of the application to the defendants would, in all likelihood, defeat its very purpose. The court accepted that submission. Justice Doctor also noted that paragraph 11 of an Additional Affidavit filed by the trust set out in detail the reasons why ex parte relief was warranted. Having perused that affidavit, the court was satisfied that the case met the threshold for acting without hearing the other side.
The application also carried a draft amendment seeking to incorporate two additional prayers in the Interim Application. The court allowed the amendment, directed it to be carried out forthwith, and dispensed with reverification. The Additional Affidavit was taken on record.
Scope of the Relief Granted
Justice Doctor granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c-1), and (c-2) of the Interim Application as amended. The digest does not reproduce the text of those prayer clauses, but the court's reasoning makes clear that the relief was directed at restraining further disclosure or publication of the compromised data.
The court directed that a copy of the order be served upon the defendants. The affidavit placing the correspondence between the trust and Defendant No. 1 on record is to be filed within two weeks from 12 June 2026.
Outcome
The matter is listed for further hearing on interim relief on 1 July 2026. The suit, Suit (L) No. 19692 of 2026, and the Interim Application (L) No. 19695 of 2026, remain pending before Justice Arif S. Doctor in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Defendant No. 1, which operates under the name FulcrumSec, is yet to appear and contest the relief.