The Supreme Court of India has taken suo motu cognisance of “digital arrest” scams and ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to lead a unified, nationwide probe into these cyber‑extortion rackets, after being told that victims-mostly senior citizens-have collectively lost about ₹3,000 crore.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has directed all states and Union Territories to grant consent to the CBI, asked the Union government, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and banks to plug systemic gaps, and warned that the court will deal with the scamsters “with iron hands”.
The court has also sought responses from the Centre, CBI, state police and regulators on how they plan to counter impersonation of judges and agencies, fake “digital courts” and forged judicial orders used to terrorise people into parting with their life savings.
What Are ‘Digital Arrest’ Scams?
Digital arrest scams involve fraudsters posing as police officers, CBI or Enforcement Directorate officials, and even judges, who contact targets via phone or video call and accuse them of crimes such as money‑laundering or narcotics trafficking.
The victims-often elderly or less digitally savvy-are shown forged Supreme Court or agency orders on WhatsApp or screen‑share, and are told they are under a “digital arrest”, confined to their homes, and must remain on video call or face immediate physical arrest.
In several cases, scammers have gone further by staging fake “digital courtrooms” using artificial intelligence to mimic judges and officials, thereby adding a false sense of authenticity and urgency to their threats.
To “resolve” the fabricated cases, the impostors instruct victims to transfer money into specified accounts, ostensibly for verification, penalties or safe‑keeping, which are in fact mule accounts controlled by criminal networks.
One Ambala‑based senior citizen couple, whose complaint triggered the present case, alleged that they were coerced over days into multiple transactions exceeding ₹1 crore after being threatened with arrest and freezing of assets under forged Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) orders.
In another incident cited before the court, a 73‑year‑old advocate‑on‑record allegedly lost over ₹3 crore to a similar racket, prompting the bench to bar grant of bail to the accused while investigation continues.
Supreme Court’s Strong Words And Directions
During hearings in October and November 2025, the bench repeatedly described the situation as “shocking”, stressing that nearly ₹3,000 crore being siphoned off through digital arrest scams in India alone could not be treated as routine cybercrime.
Justice Surya Kant remarked that the court was determined to deal with the scamsters “with iron hands” and warned that failure to act decisively now would only magnify the problem and erode public trust in digital governance and law‑enforcement.
The judges underlined that forging Supreme Court orders and using them to terrorise citizens struck at “the very foundation” of trust in the judiciary, and therefore demanded an extraordinary response.
Initially, the court issued notices to the Union government, CBI and Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking details of steps taken so far and the scale of complaints registered across the country.
As more cases surfaced-from Ambala to metropolitan cities-the bench decided that fragmented state‑level probes were inadequate and indicated its inclination to entrust all digital arrest scam investigations to the CBI.
By late November, it formally gave the CBI a “free hand” to conduct a pan‑India investigation, and directed all states and Union Territories to accord consent and share FIR details to ensure there are no jurisdictional hurdles.
Role Of Banks, Regulators And Technology
Beyond criminal investigation, the Supreme Court has turned the spotlight on banks, regulators and telecom‑internet service providers whose systems can either enable or block such fraud.
The bench has asked the RBI why artificial‑intelligence and machine‑learning‑based tools are not being widely used to flag suspicious patterns-such as repeated large transfers to newly opened or low‑KYC accounts-and to automatically freeze suspected mule accounts linked to cybercrime.
Commentaries placed before the court have argued that even the best policing cannot succeed if banking systems remain slow to respond or fail to proactively identify high‑risk transactions.
Telecom and digital platforms have also been asked to cooperate with investigators in tracing spoofed numbers, call‑forwarding chains and virtual numbers used from abroad.
With reports that some fraudsters are now using AI‑generated deepfake videos and synthetic voices to impersonate judges and senior officials, experts have urged the court to push for stronger verification, caller‑ID authentication and public‑awareness campaigns to help people distinguish genuine communications from scams.
The bench has indicated that while the immediate focus is on digital arrest scams, the learnings and systems developed now could later be extended to other online frauds, such as fake investment, job and parcel scams.
Growing Toll On Citizens
Data shared with the court suggests that victims of digital arrest scams across the country have collectively lost about ₹3,000 crore, with many losing their entire life savings or retirement funds.
A striking feature, repeatedly highlighted by the judges, is that a large share of complainants are senior citizens or older professionals who are targeted precisely because they are more likely to fear authority and less likely to cross‑check digital communications.
In several complaints, victims report being kept on continuous video calls for hours or days, prevented from talking to family members, and subjected to intense psychological pressure-replicating the trauma of a real‑world custodial situation, but through screens.
Civil‑society groups and legal bodies, including the Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association (SCAORA), have moved intervention applications to assist the court and highlight gaps in current laws and enforcement.
They have pointed out that victims often face stigma and self‑blame, and therefore hesitate to report scams promptly, which allows criminals to move funds across multiple accounts and out of the country before authorities react.
The bench has acknowledged these concerns, stressing the need for swift reporting channels, better counselling support, and mechanisms to help victims recover at least part of their stolen money wherever possible.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Supreme Court’s hardening stance signals a crucial shift from treating digital fraud as a “personal mistake” to recognising it as a systemic failure involving regulatory, technological and enforcement gaps.
Digital arrest scams weaponise fear of the law, especially among the elderly, by misusing the symbols of justice and governance; confronting them therefore demands not only strong criminal action but also a deep reaffirmation of transparency, empathy and accountability in public institutions.
The Logical Indian believes that banks, telecom companies, regulators, state police and the CBI must work in genuine partnership with citizens-sharing clear advisories, simplifying complaint processes and ensuring survivors are treated with dignity rather than derision.
For a safer digital India, communities also need to talk more openly about such scams at home, in workplaces and in neighbourhood groups so that potential victims recognise red flags before it is too late.
