Imagine waking up to find out you're running a business in another state. Except you've never left your city.
Vilas Prabhakar Lad, a 51-year-old shopkeeper from Mumbai, lived this nightmare.
What followed was five years of silence, shrugging, and sheer state and police apathy.
It began with a rent notice from Rajkot. Vilas had never been there. He thought it was a mistake. But then came a legal notice for a bounced cheque worth ₹13.8 lakh. Then another. And another.
A fake business, Metro International Trading Company, was operating in his name.
Someone had cloned his Aadhaar and PAN. Got a GST registration. Opened a bank account. Took loans. Issued cheques. Defaulted.
And at every step of this fraud, official documents bore his name but someone else’s photo.
But the state didn't flinch.
Vilas complained to everyone, Mumbai Police, Gujarat Police, UIDAI, Income Tax Dept, Union Bank, GST officials.
No FIRs were filed. No one took action.
He was told to go to Gujarat. He was told it wasn’t their jurisdiction. He was told to just… wait.
For five years, this man who runs a tiny shop to make ends meet was made to fight criminal trials, respond to tax notices, and beg departments to even acknowledge the fraud.
Every door he knocked on either ghosted him or blamed the next one.
Finally, he reached the Bombay High Court.
And the Court unleashed hell on the system.
It called out each respondent, UIDAI, the bank, GST authorities, IT department, for five years of paralysis.
Not a single authority filed an FIR despite knowing the fraud.
The Court was clear this wasn't just one agency’s fault. It was a total system failure.
A failure to authenticate. A failure to act. A failure to protect.
And a chilling reminder of what it means when your identity gets stolen in India:
You pay for someone else’s crime.
The bank said they verified “KYC documents.”
UIDAI said they couldn’t reissue Aadhaar.
The Income Tax department didn’t even bother to show up in Court.
Kafka would’ve taken notes.
The judgment ends with a warning.
That this cannot happen again.
That accountability must be fixed.
That five years of silence from the system isn’t just inefficiency, it’s injustice.
But let’s be honest, will they listen?
Vilas fought because he had no choice.
He could’ve let the fraud consume him. But he didn’t. He stood up, alone, against an entire chain of sleeping institutions.
This wasn’t just identity theft. He was literally, robbed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We are witnessing a historic showdown in Indian Constitutional History.
Justice Yashwant Varma has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court, challenging in-house inquiry's findings that indicted him in the infamous cash-at-residence row.
Here’s what’s happening 🧵-
For a background,
In March this year, a fire broke out at Justice Varma’s official residence in Delhi. What should’ve been a routine emergency response turned explosive when fire personnel allegedly discovered large bundles of unaccounted cash in an outhouse on the premises.
There was no FIR. No formal statement. But action came swiftly and silently. Then CJI Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-judge in-house inquiry panel.
Within days, Justice Varma was repatriated to the Allahabad High Court and stripped of judicial duties.
BREAKING: Can your spouse secretly record your phone calls and use them as evidence in court? Can such a recording without your knowledge violate your right to privacy?
Today, the Supreme Court gave a big ruling on this.
In a major decision, the Supreme Court of India has held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation between spouses is admissible in evidence during matrimonial disputes.
This overturns a Punjab & Haryana High Court ruling that called it a breach of privacy.
The case: A husband recorded his wife's calls and submitted them in divorce proceedings to prove cruelty.
The Family Court admitted them.
But the High Court reversed this, calling it a “clear breach” of her fundamental right to privacy.
Can your employer make you pay a penalty if you quit early? Is that even legal or just a fancy way to trap employees?
The Supreme Court just weighed in on this. Here’s what you need to know 👇
An employee joined Vijaya Bank as a Senior Manager with a clause in his appointment letter - Quit before 3 years, and pay ₹2 lakhs as liquidated damages.
He left after 2 years for another job and was made to pay 2 lakhs. Then he went to court.
He argued the clause was unconstitutional and illegal, violating his fundamental right to work (Article 19), and being a restraint on trade (Section 27, Contract Act).
He said I had no real choice, i had to sign or lose the opportunity.
There are whispers that CJI B.R. Gavai isn’t particularly fond of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
This reminds me of the most famous public rivalry at the SC.
between none other than DY’s father, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, and Justice P.N. Bhagwati.
Here is the story 🧵
Both Chandrachud and Bhagwati were Bombay lawyers.
But Chandrachud enrolled earlier, was older, and came up the hard way.
Bhagwati, on the other hand, came from legacy: his father N.H. Bhagwati was a sitting judge of the Bombay High Court (and later SC).
Senior Bhagwati wasn’t too fond of young Y.V. Chandrachud.
In fact, Advocate General H.M. Seervai once complained to the Bombay CJ that Bhagwati Sr. was unfair to junior lawyers who were seen as competition to his son.
Guess who was top of that list?
Can a High Court bench pass orders in a case if the matter wasn’t assigned to it under the Chief Justice’s roster?
The Calcutta High Court just answered this in a landmark Full Bench decision in FMAT 269 of 2024
The question before the Court was, Is an order passed by a Bench, which did not have the case assigned to it under the roster fixed by the Chief Justice, a nullity in law?
Put differently: If a Bench acts outside its rostered domain, is the order void?
This reference came up because in FMAT 269/2024, a Division Bench admitted an appeal under Order XLI Rule 11 CPC on 4 Nov 2024.
Later, it was pointed out that the Bench did not have the requisite determination (roster authority) to take up such matters filed after 2020.