Forged Allahabad High Court order got 95 websites blocked and police have now registered an FIR
The High Court says no judge passed the order dated 14 August 2026. The FIR of 6 November invokes six sections of the BNS. How blocking under section 69A and the 2009 Rules works, and what forgery of a court record means.
The Uttar Pradesh Police have registered an FIR after a forged order in the name of an Allahabad High Court judge was used to have 95 websites blocked.
The Chief Justice of the High Court directed on 3 November 2026 that a criminal case be registered, and the FIR was lodged on 6 November 2026 against an unknown person at Cantt Police Station in Prayagraj.
The purported order was dated 14 August 2026 and attributed to Justice Garima Prasad. The High Court says the judge passed no such order, and the FIR is at the stage of investigation, with no accused identified.
How the forgery was found
A person who identified himself as a senior advocate sent the purported order to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). A blocking communication of 2 September 2026 relied on it, and at least 95 websites were blocked. Reports describe them as betting platforms and sites streaming IPL matches.
On 30 October 2026 a journalist emailed the High Court, saying the blocking order had been found on the DoT website and asking the court to confirm it. The registry could not find the order on the court website.
The High Court looked into it. Its computer department reported that server data showed no order of that date, and the judge's private secretary confirmed that no such order had been passed. The Chief Justice then directed that a criminal case be registered.
The complaint and the sections invoked
Joint Registrar N. Chandra filed the complaint, which says "unknown person has committed the offence of forgery" with the intention of cheating, and that the forged documents were used as genuine. It also asks for action under the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act and other penal laws.
The FIR invokes sections 318(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338 and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Section 318(2) punishes cheating, and section 336 deals with forgery, with sub-section (3) covering forgery for the purpose of cheating.
Section 337 covers forgery of a document or electronic record purporting to be a record or proceeding of a court, and section 338 covers forgery of a valuable security or a will. Section 340(2) punishes fraudulently or dishonestly using as genuine a document known to be forged.
A second forged order from Rajasthan
The reports link the Allahabad case to an earlier one from Rajasthan. In July 2026 a purported Rajasthan High Court order in the name of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sent to the DoT by a person who called himself an Advocate-on-Record, led to the blocking of at least 34 websites.
The Rajasthan High Court said the order "appears to be fraudulent" and was not on its server. Together the two orders led to the blocking of 129 websites.
How websites are lawfully blocked
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 lets the Central Government, or an officer it specially authorises, direct an agency or intermediary to block public access to information.
The satisfaction must be recorded as reasons in writing, and it must be in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order, or to prevent incitement to a related cognisable offence.
The Supreme Court upheld section 69A and the Blocking Rules of 2009 in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, calling it a narrowly drawn provision with safeguards.
It noted that written reasons allow a blocking order to be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226, and that the Rules give a hearing to the originator and the intermediary before an order is made.
The judgment also records that a blocking order can come in only two ways. One is by the Designated Officer after following the 2009 Rules. The other is when the Designated Officer acts on an order of a competent court, which under rule 10 is done on receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Review and confidentiality under the Rules
The reports say the forged order reached the DoT, and they do not say under which provision or rule the DoT acted on it.
Rule 14 of the 2009 Rules provides for a Review Committee that meets at least once in two months to check whether blocking directions follow section 69A(1), and it can set aside directions and order sites unblocked. Rule 16 requires strict confidentiality of all requests received and actions taken on them.
The Supreme Court also held in Shreya Singhal that an intermediary which receives actual knowledge of a court order to remove content must act on it, which is the reading it gave to section 79(3)(b).
The offence of forging a court order
A forged order is a false document under section 336(1) of the BNS if it is made to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, to support a claim, or with intent to commit fraud.
The Joint Registrar's complaint asked for action under the Information Technology Act as well. The reports of the FIR do not name any section of that Act as having been added.
Under Article 215 a High Court has power to punish for contempt of itself, but the proceedings here were started as a criminal case on the Chief Justice's direction, and the reports describe no contempt proceedings.
Why forging a court record weighs more
The BNS ranks forgery by what is forged and why. Ordinary forgery under section 336(2) carries up to two years, forgery for the purpose of cheating under section 336(3) up to seven years, and forgery of a record or proceeding of a court under section 337 also up to seven years.
The scheme reflects the weight the law gives to court records, since a document that purports to come from a court is meant to be acted on.
Forged court orders in other frauds
Forged court orders have featured in other frauds as well. The Supreme Court took up its suo motu case on digital arrest scams in October 2025 after a senior citizen couple lost their savings to fraudsters who used forged court orders.
What remains to be established
No accused has been named and no arrest has been reported. The reports record only that the sender described himself as a senior advocate, and do not say whether that description was true or who prepared the order. The FIR was registered on 6 November 2026, and the investigation under it continues.