Supreme Court Takes Unprecedented Action Against Digital Arrest Fraud Targeting Elderly Citizens

Digital arrest is an emerging cybercrime trend that has prompted extraordinary judicial intervention in India.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court of India took an unprecedented step on Monday by restraining courts from releasing individuals accused of defrauding a 72-year-old Supreme Court advocate of Rs 3.29 crore through 'digital arrest' fraud. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized that this case necessitates "unusual orders."

"We must address these cases firmly to send the appropriate message. An unusual phenomenon requires unusual intervention," the bench stated.

Digital arrest represents an increasing form of cybercrime where perpetrators masquerade as law enforcement officials, court representatives, or government personnel to intimidate victims through audio and video calls. The fraudsters virtually hold victims hostage and pressure them into transferring money.

The court acknowledged an intervention application filed by the Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA), which championed the elderly lawyer's case and requested stringent action against the perpetrators.

SCAORA president Vipin Nair informed the court that the elderly advocate had lost her life savings and that the accused, arrested following an FIR registration in May, were about to receive statutory bail.

Responding to these submissions, the bench immediately ordered: "Meanwhile, the suspect Vijay Khanna and other co-accused shall not be released by any court. They may approach this court for relief." Justice Kant clarified to Nair, "We don't oppose anyone's life and liberty, but this case warrants unusual orders. These cases must be handled sternly to communicate the right message. An unusual phenomenon necessitates unusual intervention."

Nair revealed that while police recovered over Rs 42 lakh from the accused, the case highlighted procedural gaps and investigative challenges surrounding such crimes. Despite a magistrate's directive to deposit the money in the victim's account, the bank refused to comply.

The bench indicated that comprehensive guidelines would soon be issued, which would be revelatory for many agencies, advising Nair to "wait for the next hearing date."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta supported Nair, noting that after speaking with the elderly victim, he discovered the fraudsters were so convincing that she liquidated her fixed deposits to pay them.

Nair emphasized that cybercriminals specifically target vulnerable elderly individuals rather than younger people, stealing their life savings.

Justice Kant reassured, "We will take action. Some directives are necessary." The bench instructed amicus curiae NS Nappinai to prepare nationwide advertisements asking victims of similar cybercrimes to contact her to determine the full scope of these crimes.

One counsel highlighted that India has not ratified a United Nations treaty on cybercrime that would facilitate cross-border tracking of criminals. The bench requested Mehta to investigate this issue and scheduled the next hearing for November 24.

On November 3, the Supreme Court expressed shock at the scale of digital arrest cases in India, with over Rs 3000 crore allegedly extorted from victims, particularly senior citizens, stating these cases must be addressed with "an iron hand." The court examined sealed reports submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Justice Kant noted that the CBI had identified crime syndicates operating from offshore locations with "scam compounds" comprising financial, technical, and human components.

The Supreme Court initiated proceedings after receiving a letter from an elderly woman in Ambala, Haryana, who complained that she and her husband were subjected to "digital arrest" based on forged court orders and agency documents by fraudsters who extorted Rs 1.05 crore from them in September.

The woman reported that court orders were presented during multiple audio and video calls by individuals impersonating CBI, ED, and judicial officers threatening arrest.

On October 27, the court indicated its intention to assign the CBI to investigate digital arrest cases, considering the magnitude and nationwide spread of such crimes. The court requested details of FIRs registered across states and Union territories, stating it would monitor the CBI investigation and issue necessary directions.

On October 17, recognizing the increasing incidents of online fraud in India, particularly digital arrests using fabricated judicial orders, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Central government and the CBI, declaring that such offenses undermine the "very foundation" of public trust in the system.

The court highlighted the growing number of digital arrest cases nationwide and stated that forging court orders and judges' signatures to digitally arrest innocent citizens, including seniors, erodes public faith in judicial institutions.

The bench concluded that forgery of documents and criminal misuse of the court's name, seal, and judicial orders constitutes a grave concern that cannot be treated as ordinary fraud or cybercrime.