[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Himanshu Pathak vs Ministry Of Electronics And ... on 8 April, 2026
2026:MHC:1396
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 02.04.2026
DELIVERED ON : 08.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
Himanshu Pathak,
Proprietor of CyberX9,
Flat No.B-3, 504,
Shurya Green Apartment,
Surya Enclave, Jalandhar-I,
Jalandhar, Punjab - 144 009. .. Appellant(s)
(in all WAs)
Vs
1.Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2.Ministry of Finance,
3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
3.Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
4.Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
A Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
______________
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
5.Insurance Regulatory and
Developmental Authority of India (IRDAI),
Sy No.115/1, Financial District,
Nanakramguda, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad - 500 032.
6.Security Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhawan,
Plot No.C-4-A, ‘G’ Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051.
7.Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited,
Having its registered office at
No.1. New Tank Street,
Valluvar Kottam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory. .. Respondent(s)
(in all WAs)
COMMON PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
to set aside the common order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.12042, 12045, 12049, 12054, 12055
and 12057 of 2023 and consequently allow the original relief sought
for in W.P.Nos.12042, 12045, 12049, 12054, 12055 and 12057 of 2023
respectively.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj
(in all WAs) for Mr.Vaibhav Rangarajan
Venkatesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.Krishna Srinivasan
(in all WAs) Senior Counsel
for M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam
and Associates for R7
______________
Page 2 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)
All these set of intra-court appeals are directed against the
common order of the writ court dated 23.10.2024, whereby directions
sought against each of the respondents to take action against the 7 th
respondent/Insurance Company based on the petitioner’s complaint,
came to be rejected.
2. Since these writ appeals arise out of the common order
passed in the writ petitions, all these writ appeals are heard together
and disposed of by this common order.
3. The short facts to be noted in these writ appeals are that the
7th respondent is a private Insurance Company providing insurance
policies to various customers in accordance to their needs. The 7 th
respondent is also one of the leading and largest company in insurance
sector. The appellant is a policy holder/customer of the 7 th respondent
and is holding a valid insurance policy.
4. As a customer, the appellant is provided with access to the
web applications of the 7th respondent to view his policy details
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
through a login ID and password. According to the appellant, when he
viewed the details of his policy from the 7 th respondent’s website and
since he is also indulged in providing cyber security services, he
happened to note that there are certain vulnerabilities in the website
of the 7th respondent whereby a third party could have access to view
the profile of the other policy holders and thereby, there is every
opportunity for the data to get stolen. In such event, the personal
details of the policy holders of the 7 th respondent may be stolen by
hackers and therefore, he had intimated about the vulnerabilities to
the 7th respondent through e-mail dated 19.12.2022. Further,
according to the appellant, the 7 th respondent had in fact thanked him
for bringing to their notice about the vulnerabilities.
5. However, the 7th respondent filed a suit before this Court in
C.S.No.1 of 2023 against the appellant and obtained an order of
ad-interim injunction on 03.01.2023 as if the appellant had
unauthorisedly accessed and collected data of the 7 th respondent and
stolen the same. The interim injunction was made absolute and the
application was allowed on 07.06.2023. The interim injunction granted
was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.06.2024
in the appeal preferred by the appellant in O.S.A.(CAD)Nos.109 and
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
110 of 2023. Further, based on the complaint of the 7 th respondent,
FIR also came to be registered against the appellant in Crime No.2 of
2023 by CCD-I, Chennai City, for offences under Sections 66 and 43(b)
of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act”).
6. While so, alleging that in view of the lapses on the part of the
7th respondent, which led to the vulnerabilities by putting the personal
details of various customers at risk of being stolen by the hackers, the
appellant had preferred a complaint on 13.01.2023 to the 5 th
respondent/IRDAI and on 07.03.2023 to each of the other respondents
1 to 4 and 6. Since, according to the appellant, no action was taken,
he had preferred the batch of writ petitions against the respondents.
7. The writ court, on considering the issue, came to the
conclusion that since the issue of vulnerabilities and data breach raised
by the appellant in respect of the 7 th respondent/Insurance Company is
already sub judice before the Court in C.S.No.1 of 2023 and also the
interim injunction was granted in the suit and confirmed by the
appellate court which is still operating, no further proceedings can be
taken by any of the authorities till the issue is decided in the suit. The
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
writ court had also granted liberty to the appellant to work out his
remedy in accordance with law after disposal of the suit.
8. Aggrieved, the appellant assailing the common order has
preferred separate writ appeals.
9. Mr.Nithyaesh Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant argued that in view of the vulnerability in the website of the
7th respondent, apart from the personal details of the appellant, the
personal details of several crores of customers are at the risk of being
stolen by hackers and the respondents have not taken any action as
contemplated under the Act against the 7 th respondent for their lapses.
He further submitted that though it may be true that the civil suit is
pending between the parties, that will not in any way bar the statutory
/ competent authorities under the relevant provisions of the Act from
taking action in respect of any breach or lapses, as it concerns the
interests of the public and the country.
10. He further submitted that even though the appellant since
having his own business entities, might have had discussions with the
7th respondent in providing services but that will not be relevant and
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
come in way of the competent authorities from taking action for the
lapses committed on the part of the 7th respondent leading to the
vulnerabilities in the web application.
11. By referring to Section 70B of the Act, the learned counsel
submitted that the Government had appointed CERT-In under the 1 st
respondent as the agency which shall serve as the national agency for
co-ordination of cyber incidents response activities, issuing guidelines,
advisories, vulnerability notes, prevention, response and reporting of
cyber incidents. The agencies are empowered under sub-section 6 of
Section 70B of the Act to call for information and give direction to the
service providers and intermediaries.
12. Further, the Information Technology (The Indian Computer
Emergency Response Team and Manner of performing Functions and
Duties) Rules, 2013 framed thereunder, particularly Rule 12(1)(a)
mandates that any organisation or corporate entity affected by cyber
security shall report the incident to CERT-In under the 1 st respondent,
who shall, after seeking information, issue the directives as per Rule
15 and also the Government had issued directions on 28.04.2022
regarding the reporting of information and actions to be taken. The
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ court had not
addressed these issues and as such, sought for interference of this
Court.
13. Per contra, Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel,
representing M/s.S.Ramasubramaniam and Associates on Caveat for
the 7th respondent submitted that the appellant who is a service
provider in cyber security, had indulged in hacking of the data and had
threatened the 7th respondent for a ransom to avail his services, due to
which they have filed a suit before this Court and obtained an order of
injunction against the appellant from releasing any of the details or
data of the 7th respondent/Insurance Company, which is also confirmed
by the Division Bench and pending trial.
14. Due to the cyber breach committed by the appellant, based
on the complaint, FIR in Crime No.2 of 2023 has been registered
against the appellant and after investigation, charge sheet has been
filed and the case is pending in C.C.No.564 of 2026 before the XI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Further, Criminal Original Petition
filed by the appellant in Crl.O.P.No.10781 of 2023 to quash the
aforesaid FIR has been dismissed by this Court on 30.03.2026.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
15. The learned counsel further submitted that only in order to
escape from the legal consequences, the appellant had subsequently
filed the writ petitions. In fact, the 7 th respondent had reported the
incidents to all the authorities and necessary steps have been taken
and a foolproof cyber security is in place. In view of the civil dispute
pending regarding the personal right of the appellant, the learned
single Judge had rightly not entertained the writ petitions, which is
justified and needs no interference.
16. Heard the submissions and considered the materials placed
on record.
17. Admittedly, the appellant is a cyber security expert running
a proprietary concern in the name of “CyberX9” in India by engaging a
team of cyber security experts from the year 2021. Even as per the
affidavit, the appellant is also actively involved in politics and assisting
in managing political campaigns for several political parties in both
parliamentary and state elections.
18. The 7th respondent is a private Insurance Company
providing service in the insurance sector by issuing policies to the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
customers in accordance with their requirements and needs.
Admittedly, the 7th respondent is one of the leading service providers
in the private insurance sector in the country, who has several crores
of customers. The 7th respondent is having its own web portal
providing online services to its customers. Each customer is provided
with a login ID and password by which the customer could have access
to the web portal of the 7 th respondent and view the personal profile
and the details of their own policy. The customers are authorized to
view, transact and pay premiums in respect of their policy. The
appellant also being a policy holder/customer of the 7 th respondent,
had been provided with the login ID and password to access the web
portal.
19. Admittedly, it is not the case of the appellant that he was
not able to have proper access to his policy details through the
medium provided by the 7th respondent. Nor it is the case of the
appellant that some of his personal details pertaining to his policy or
the information and the details given to the 7 th respondent for the
policy have been hacked or stolen from the web portal of the 7 th
respondent by which the personal details of the appellant have been
misused anywhere by any such person. In case of any such data of the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
appellant having been stolen or removed from the online portal of the
7th respondent, which had resulted in intrusion into the privacy of the
appellant, then it would amount to a cyber security issue where the
appellant would get a right to seek for a remedy in respect of the data
breach committed in the web portal of the 7th respondent.
20. It is only the claim of the appellant that when he was able
to access his details of the policies and personal profile through the
login ID and password from the web portal of the 7 th respondent, he
incidentally tried and tested certain methods by which he found out
that there is a vulnerability, due to which he was able to access the
personal information of other policy holders. At this juncture, it is to be
noted that neither the appellant, who being admittedly a cyber
security service provider, had sought for any permission from the 7 th
respondent to conduct any such test, nor the 7 th respondent/Insurance
Company had entrusted or availed the services of the appellant by
authorising him to conduct a test or review the cyber security of web
portal.
21. Therefore, the very test or access if had been made by the
appellant in respect of the details of the other policy holders in the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
name of the test or random check can be construed only as an
intrusion or unauthorised access. Since the issues are sub judice
before the civil and criminal courts and further this Court is not in
possession of any material, where the appellant had taken the data of
other customers or attempted, we refrain from commenting on it any
further.
22. The appellant, on 19.12.2022, had addressed an email to
the 7th respondent stating that there are certain vulnerabilities in their
web portal and in the event of any attack from hackers, there is a
vulnerability of data theft. The appellant himself in the typed set of
papers has enclosed 3 call details made with the 7 th respondent. The
portion of the 3rd call dated 20.12.2022, which reads as follows;
“HP : There is a service called, Attack Surface Analysis. The report
we’ve sent you is a smaller part of Attack Surface Analysis, we do
for our people, for our clients. And the other thing which we do is,
monthly security assessment. Some clients say us, give us
quarterly, some clients say us, give us monthly. So there are two
subcategories on monthly security assessment. And we charge for
Attack Surface Analysis is $65,000 USD, this is one-time cost. This
$65,000 USD is a starting range, depending on the system and
depending on the things, on applications -- web application and
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
mobile application, details. And we've also analysed your scope for
web application and mobile application, and I think you would fit
in this. And the other thing is, monthly security assessment, and
we charge for, $3000 USD per month. These are the starting
prices, according to our assessment of a similar wavelength what
your company has and we are charging from other clients.”
23. The above communication reveals that the appellant was
providing a service for which a one-time cost of $65,000 USD is
charged and also a monthly security assessment at a charge of $3,000
USD per month is available, which could be availed by the 7 th
respondent towards cyber security services.
24. The appellant, being in a commercial venture involved in
the business of cyber security and being a customer of the 7 th
respondent holding a policy based on which he was provided with a
login ID and credentials to have access to his policy, had interfered or
had unauthorizedly accessed the web portal of the 7 th respondent in
respect of other restricted data and had attempted to prevail upon the
7th respondent to engage his services towards cyber security.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
25. Immediately, the 7th respondent, apart from intimating to
the concerned authorities and addressing the issues at its end (which
would be dealt with in the later part of the order), had approached this
Court and filed a civil suit in C.S.No.1 of 2023 against the appellant
along with the application seeking for an interim injunction restraining
the appellant from publishing, sharing or dealing with the illegally
accessed information relating to the 7 th respondent or any of its
customers.
26. The learned single Judge of this Court in the suit, by order
dated 03.01.2023, had granted an order of interim injunction against
the appellant. Subsequently, the applications came to be allowed on
07.06.2023 and the interim injunction granted was made absolute.
The learned single Judge had observed that the appellant herein had
accessed the computer system of the 7 th respondent and seems to
have downloaded data and such act is illegal and against the
provisions of the Act. The request of the appellant to permit him to
publish the vulnerability would only perpetuate the illegality committed
by the appellant and as such, while granting interim injunction, had
also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to seize the materials
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
available with the appellant. The relevant portion of the order reads as
follows;
“21. Section 43 of the said Act provides penalty against
any person without permission of the owner or any other
person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or
computer network accesses or secure accesses to such
computer, computer system or computer network and also
downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or
information from such computer, computer system or
computer network including information or data held or stored
in any removable storage medium. In the present case,
admittedly, the respondents had accessed the computer
system and seems to have downloaded the datas from the
applicant's computer system.
22. This is an act prima facie not only attracts penalty
under Section 43 but it is also an offence punishable with
imprisonment under Section 66 of the Act. Therefore, I am
prima facie of the view that the act of the respondents in
accessing and downloading the data of the applicant is illegal
as being contrary to the Act. What the respondents now seek
is to permit it to publish the vulnerability of the applicant
based upon the aforesaid illegal act. This in my opinion would
only perpetuate the illegality committed by the applicant to
gain reputation.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
23. The reason given by the respondents to give such
publication is to gain reputation. The respondents cannot act
in violation of a statute for which he is liable to be punished
and claim that he should be permitted to publish such illegal
activity.
24. Hence, I am of the view that the injunction as
prayed for should be granted since it is an admitted fact that
the respondents had accessed the system of the applicant and
claims to have certain details of its customers. Further an
application seeking for an Advocate Commissioner with the
help of Technical Expert to inspect the computer system of the
respondents and to procure the information that had been
downloaded by them in respect of the applicant is also
required to be allowed.”
27. The appellant had filed appeals in O.S.A.(CAD)Nos.109 and
110 of 2023, in which the Division Bench by an order dated
12.06.2024 even though stayed the order of the learned single Judge
in appointing the Advocate Commissioner, but however, had ordered
that the interim injunction granted by the learned single Judge would
continue till the disposal of the main suit and the suit would be decided
on its merits in accordance with law. The relevant paragraph is
extracted hereunder;
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
“11(xiii). Order of interim injunction granted by Hon’ble single
Judge in O.A.No.03 of 2023 vide order dated 07.06.2023 which is
under challenge in O.S.A.No.109 of 2023 will also continue till
disposal of the main suit.”
28. When admittedly the appellant is a policy holder who had
been given a login ID and password to have access to his own policy
from the web portal of the 7th respondent, the act of the appellant in
having access or downloading any other details having already been
found to be prima facie illegal and against the provisions of the Act,
whereby the appellant had been restrained from releasing or dealing
with the illegally accessed information, his personal rights regarding
the vulnerability and the breach of data, as rightly observed by the
writ court, are sub judice before the civil court in suit. Any further
claim or action would only depend upon the ultimate decision to be
taken in the civil suit pending between the parties.
29. Further, in view of the data breach committed by the
appellant, the 7th respondent had preferred a complaint and an FIR in
Crime No.2 of 2023 came to be registered against the appellant for
offences under Sections 66 and 43(b) of the Act. After completion of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
the investigation, final report has been filed and the same has been
taken cognizance and pending in C.C.No.564 of 2026 on the file of the
XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. It is submitted that
Crl.O.P.No.10781 of 2023 filed by the appellant seeking to quash the
FIR had also been dismissed on 30.03.2026. As such, as on date,
apart from being restrained by the order of the civil court, the
appellant is also charged for the offences under the Act for committing
the illegal access and data breach in the web portal of the 7 th
respondent.
30. When the appellant had sent an e-mail to the 7 th respondent
on 19.12.2022, followed by 3 calls on 19.12.2022 and 20.12.2022,
where he had canvassed for the cyber security services provided by
him, which is extracted above in the earlier part of this order and after
the 7th respondent filed a suit and obtained an interim order on
03.01.2023 and lodged a complaint, based on which FIR has also been
registered against the appellant on 05.01.2023, the appellant for the
reasons best known to him, sent a complaint to the 1 st respondent on
13.01.2023 and addressed complaints to the other respondents only
on 07.03.2023. The appellant had thereafter preferred 6 writ petitions
on 10.04.2023 verbatim, making the same averments in all the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
affidavits and also making all the respondents as parties to each of the
writ petitions and had sought a direction by changing the respondents
in the prayer alone to take action against the 7 th respondent/Insurance
Company. The action pursued by the appellant on the face of it
demonstrates that the intention lacks bonafides.
31. The averments made in the affidavit states that the
complaint was sent as there is a possibility that the data of several
thousands of customers could be stolen due to the vulnerability. When
the averments in the affidavit proceed as though it is in the public
interest, the appellant has not preferred any public interest litigation,
which has to be pursued in compliance of the relevant rules before the
Division Bench. Instead, in the guise of espousing the cause of other
customers of the 7th respondent, the appellant had preferred the writ
petitions without making out any averments regarding infringement of
his personal rights in respect of any of his personal data having been
stolen or misused by any third parties taken from the web portal of the
7th respondent due to the vulnerability or lapse committed by the 7 th
respondent/Insurance Company.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
32. In the absence of any lapse or data breach by any one, the
appellant himself, having committed an illegal access and data breach,
had after his attempt and negotiation ended in failure and faced with
the civil and criminal proceedings, had thought it fit to raise a
complaint. When none of the personal right of the appellant is affected
and his personal data has not been breached, the writ petitions filed
itself is not maintainable.
33. Be that as it may, the fulcrum of the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that the ‘Indian Computer
Emergency Response Team to serve as national agency for incident
response’ constituted by the Government under 70B of the Act shall
serve as the national agency to deal with the incidents of any cyber
security and under the relevant rules, CERT-In shall deal with the
collection of details and issuance of directions and any individual or
company is mandated to report the cyber security incident. Inspite of
the complaint of the appellant, no action was pursued, which resulted
in filing of the writ petitions.
34. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
liable to be outrightly rejected for the simple reason that when the
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
appellant sent a complaint to CERT-In, a body of the 1 st respondent on
13.01.2023, even as per the averments made in the affidavit, CERT-In
had issued a reply stating that the 7 th respondent had sent intimation
to it, informing that the issue had been resolved. In the absence of
any challenge to the admitted reply sent by the CERT-In, a body of the
1st respondent, the claim that the complaint of the appellant has not
been addressed is completely misplaced.
35. In fact, from the very materials filed by the appellant, it is
evident that the 7th respondent had promptly reported the incident to
the 5th respondent/IRDAI as early as on 21.12.2022 itself and also to
the 6th respondent/SEBI and the further communications enclosed
reveal that the issue has been promptly taken care of by the 7 th
respondent and addressed by all the authorities concerned. It is to be
noted that the appellant had sent a legal notice to the 7 th respondent
on 22.12.2022, which was suitably replied by the 7 th respondent on
25.12.2022, for which the appellant also issued a rejoinder on
26.12.2022. Therefore, only after this exchange of notices and the
issuance of the interim order by the civil court and registration of the
criminal case, the appellant choose to send a complaint to various
departments/authorities, which also have been promptly taken note of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
and dealt with.
36. The 5th respondent/IRDAI had also made it clear by filing a
detailed counter affidavit in the writ petition that the appellant had
resorted to the proceedings only after being faced with the civil and
criminal proceedings. The appellant had only indulged in intruding into
the web platform of the 7th respondent/Insurance Company and
already the 5th respondent had issued various circulars and guidelines,
which have been lastly revised on 24.04.2023. Further, even before
the receipt of the appellant’s communication, based on the information
of the 7th respondent, the 5th respondent had taken cognizance of the
incident along with the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team
(CERT-In), an organization of the 1 st respondent and the issue was
taken note of and addressed. Further, the appellant being accused of
unauthorized access, had not made out any case of statutory
infringement requiring action.
37. The 6th respondent/SEBI has also filed separate counter
affidavits refuting the allegations of the appellant. From the
communications of the 7th respondent filed by the appellant, it is clear
that the 7th respondent had conducted an investigation in respect of
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
the unauthorized action of the appellant by reporting to all the
authorities concerned and the 7 th respondent had taken all
comprehensive measures with its own team and with experts in
dealing with any cyber security issues, thereby protecting the data of
the Insurance Company including all its customers.
38. The interim applications filed by the appellant in the writ
petition seeking to stop all the online activities of the 7 th
respondent/Insurance Company only show that when the appellant has
not come out with any case of his personal data infringement or theft,
the appellant is only intending to restrict or disrupt the operations of
the 7th respondent, to achieve his own business ventures.
39. In such circumstances, when both the civil and criminal
cases are pending against the appellant and the issue is sub judice
before the concerned courts, any further claim or action by the
appellant would only be based on the ultimate decisions to be arrived
at in the pending proceedings. The writ court had also rightly given
liberty to the appellant to work out his remedies in the manner known
to law based on the ultimate decisions in the civil proceedings. We see
no error or infirmity in the decision of the writ court warranting
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
interference.
40. Accordingly, these writ appeals are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand
closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J)
08.04.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
To:
1.Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
2.Ministry of Finance,
3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
3.Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi – 110 001.
4.Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
A Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
5.Insurance Regulatory and
Developmental Authority of India (IRDAI),
Sy No.115/1, Financial District,
Nanakramguda, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad - 500 032.
6.Security Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhawan,
Plot No.C-4-A, ‘G’ Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051.
7.Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited,
Having its registered office at
No.1. New Tank Street,
Valluvar Kottam High Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sri
Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in
W.A.Nos.640, 641, 645, 827, 828 and 829 of 2026
08.04.2026
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
