The debate over India’s obsolete cyberlaws and inadequate institutional safeguards has been revived by the Supreme Court’s recent harsh warning about the growing threat of digital arrests and scams where cybercriminals forge court orders and pose as judges or police officials.
The urgency is underlined by India’s rapidly expanding digital footprint and soaring cybercrime that the legal framework is not equipped to deal with, experts said.
With over 86% of households now connected to the internet, the attack surface for cybercriminals has grown exponentially. Cybersecurity incidents in the country more than doubled in two years, from 1.03 million in 2022 to 2.27 million in 2024, with digital arrest scams forming an increasingly sophisticated category of this threat landscape.
The top court took suo motu cognisance of a case involving the digital arrest of a senior citizen couple in Haryana’s Ambala, where fraudsters forged court and probe agency orders to extort Rs 1.05 crore. The court called the incident a “grave criminal offence” that “strikes at the foundation of public trust in the judicial system,” exposing the use of technology as a weapon to subvert justice.
Such scamsters use fake summons, forged digital signatures, and deep fake video calls where AI-generated avatars of judges or officers threaten victims with detention. They use deepfake technology, spoofed WhatsApp numbers, and mule bank accounts to create the illusion of legitimacy, and then vanish with the money.
“This is no longer about individual fraud,” said Ankit Sahni, partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates. “By calling digital impersonation of judges a ‘grave criminal act,’ the court has reframed the issue as an assault on the justice system itself. These scams don’t just cheat people, they corrode faith in judicial institutions.”
Experts said the legal framework hasn’t kept pace with sophisticated digital deception. Both the Information Technology Act, 2000, which was last amended in 2008, and the recently introduced Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) continue to treat these offences through the lens of traditional cheating and forgery.
“Digital arrests don’t fit neatly under current provisions,” said Pavan Duggal, a cyber law expert. “Convictions are rare, and deterrence is almost non-existent.”
Although Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act address impersonation, they fail to acknowledge the harm done to institutions when scamsters impersonate law enforcement and the judiciary.
Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co, said the Supreme Court’s intervention marks a crucial legal turning point.
“By recognising that these scams erode institutional trust, not just individual confidence, the court has reframed the problem. Existing provisions can stretch to cover impersonation and cheating, but they were never designed for AI-driven fraud or digital impersonation of state authorities. We now need a distinct legal category that treats such acts as offences against the state’s legitimacy, not just private citizens,” he said.
Law enforcement agencies are also struggling to keep up.
A senior official from Delhi Police’s cyber cell said cases involving forged judicial orders and fake police calls have spiked in recent months. “Fraudsters exploit citizens’ fear of authority. By the time victims realise the scam, it becomes hard to track the criminals and the money has already moved through layers of mule accounts,” the officer said.
According to experts, a more robust legal deterrent and a foolproof digital verification system approach are required. Judicial documents embedded with blockchain or QR codes, verifiable through official court websites, could enable citizens to quickly verify authenticity.
Duggal said banks must share responsibility, since most of these crimes involve money transfers through regulated channels. “If the RBI mandates that banks refund victims in confirmed digital-arrest cases, it will restore public faith. Right now, banks contest even zero-liability claims,” he said.
While awareness campaigns like Cyber Dost and certain helpline numbers have raised awareness, they are still reactive in nature rather than systemic, experts said.
The SC’s action should be the first step towards a more comprehensive reform, they said. Such reform must require authentication for all official digital communications and treat digital impersonation as a crime against institutional trust.
In the age of deepfakes and AI, “even trust can now be counterfeited,” Sahni noted.
The urgency is underlined by India’s rapidly expanding digital footprint and soaring cybercrime that the legal framework is not equipped to deal with, experts said.
With over 86% of households now connected to the internet, the attack surface for cybercriminals has grown exponentially. Cybersecurity incidents in the country more than doubled in two years, from 1.03 million in 2022 to 2.27 million in 2024, with digital arrest scams forming an increasingly sophisticated category of this threat landscape.
The top court took suo motu cognisance of a case involving the digital arrest of a senior citizen couple in Haryana’s Ambala, where fraudsters forged court and probe agency orders to extort Rs 1.05 crore. The court called the incident a “grave criminal offence” that “strikes at the foundation of public trust in the judicial system,” exposing the use of technology as a weapon to subvert justice.
Such scamsters use fake summons, forged digital signatures, and deep fake video calls where AI-generated avatars of judges or officers threaten victims with detention. They use deepfake technology, spoofed WhatsApp numbers, and mule bank accounts to create the illusion of legitimacy, and then vanish with the money.
“This is no longer about individual fraud,” said Ankit Sahni, partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates. “By calling digital impersonation of judges a ‘grave criminal act,’ the court has reframed the issue as an assault on the justice system itself. These scams don’t just cheat people, they corrode faith in judicial institutions.”
Experts said the legal framework hasn’t kept pace with sophisticated digital deception. Both the Information Technology Act, 2000, which was last amended in 2008, and the recently introduced Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) continue to treat these offences through the lens of traditional cheating and forgery.
“Digital arrests don’t fit neatly under current provisions,” said Pavan Duggal, a cyber law expert. “Convictions are rare, and deterrence is almost non-existent.”
Although Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act address impersonation, they fail to acknowledge the harm done to institutions when scamsters impersonate law enforcement and the judiciary.
Rohit Jain, managing partner at Singhania & Co, said the Supreme Court’s intervention marks a crucial legal turning point.
“By recognising that these scams erode institutional trust, not just individual confidence, the court has reframed the problem. Existing provisions can stretch to cover impersonation and cheating, but they were never designed for AI-driven fraud or digital impersonation of state authorities. We now need a distinct legal category that treats such acts as offences against the state’s legitimacy, not just private citizens,” he said.
Law enforcement agencies are also struggling to keep up.
A senior official from Delhi Police’s cyber cell said cases involving forged judicial orders and fake police calls have spiked in recent months. “Fraudsters exploit citizens’ fear of authority. By the time victims realise the scam, it becomes hard to track the criminals and the money has already moved through layers of mule accounts,” the officer said.
According to experts, a more robust legal deterrent and a foolproof digital verification system approach are required. Judicial documents embedded with blockchain or QR codes, verifiable through official court websites, could enable citizens to quickly verify authenticity.
Duggal said banks must share responsibility, since most of these crimes involve money transfers through regulated channels. “If the RBI mandates that banks refund victims in confirmed digital-arrest cases, it will restore public faith. Right now, banks contest even zero-liability claims,” he said.
While awareness campaigns like Cyber Dost and certain helpline numbers have raised awareness, they are still reactive in nature rather than systemic, experts said.
The SC’s action should be the first step towards a more comprehensive reform, they said. Such reform must require authentication for all official digital communications and treat digital impersonation as a crime against institutional trust.
In the age of deepfakes and AI, “even trust can now be counterfeited,” Sahni noted.
