Introduction
The rapid digitisation of the Indian judiciary following the COVID-19 pandemic, while enhancing accessibility, has inadvertently created a legislative vacuum exploited by sophisticated cybercriminals through the phenomenon of “digital arrest.” This psychological heist weaponises the public’s new familiarity with virtual legal processes, as seen in the harrowing January 2026 case where an NRI doctor couple in Delhi was defrauded of ₹14.85 crore. By impersonating law enforcement and maintaining constant virtual surveillance, fraudsters bypass traditional procedural safeguards to extort massive sums under the guise of “national security” investigations. This evolution in crime demonstrates that even highly educated individuals are vulnerable to these digital sieges, highlighting an urgent need to align modern technology with robust legal security frameworks to ensure that our digital lifeline does not remain a digital trap..1
Understanding the Menace of Digital Arrest and Cybercrime as Organised Crime under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
In recent years, incidents of so-called digital arrest have increased at an alarming rate. In these cases, victims receive calls or messages from individuals posing as police officers, investigating agencies, or judicial authorities. The victims are falsely informed that they are involved in serious offences and are threatened with immediate arrest unless they comply with demands, usually monetary. The soft targets of such crimes are often retired persons, women, and children, particularly those with limited legal awareness. Many victims, out of fear and confusion, part with their hard-earned savings. These crimes are not isolated incidents but part of a larger, organised pattern of cyber fraud.
Recognising the gravity of cyber offences, the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) has taken a significant step by including cybercrime within the ambit of organised crime under Section 1112. This legislative recognition reflects a growing understanding that cybercrime is no longer random or petty but systematic, coordinated, and often transnational. Section 111 of the BNS defines organised crime as a continuing unlawful activity carried out by groups acting either singly or jointly. It includes offences such as kidnapping, robbery, extortion, economic offences, and cybercrimes with severe consequences. By categorising serious cyber offences as organised crime, lawmakers have enabled stronger investigative powers and stricter penal consequences.
While Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita recognises cybercrime as organised crime, a broader legal framework underpins protection against digital arrest and related cyber frauds. At the constitutional level, such scams implicate fundamental rights under Articles 21, 20(3), and 223. The coercion and psychological duress inherent in digital arrest directly interfere with personal liberty and due process under Article 21. Victims, often forced to act under threat, face violations of the right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and protections against arbitrary arrest (Article 22).
As Justice P.N. Bhagwati once observed that “Liberty is not the absence of restraint; it is the presence of law that protects the innocent from fear.” This principle underscores the importance of procedural safeguards under the BNS. Sections 354 and 365 BNS establishes conditions for lawful arrest and notice of appearance, ensuring that coercion or threats via phone or digital communication cannot replace due process. Digital arrest scams flagrantly bypass these protections, exposing the gap between statutory safeguards and the misuse of modern technology.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 complements these provisions by addressing the technical and digital dimensions of such crimes. Offences under Sections 43, 66C, and 66D6, covering unauthorised access, identity theft, and personation through digital means directly capture the modus operandi of digital arrest syndicates. Section 727, which penalises breaches of privacy and confidentiality, further protects individuals from misuse of personal and financial information. Together, these provisions provide both substantive and procedural legal remedies, enabling authorities to prosecute offenders effectively while safeguarding victims’ rights.
By integrating constitutional guarantees, procedural safeguards, and cyber-specific offences, India’s legal framework provides a robust foundation to combat digital arrest. However, the increasing sophistication of these scams underscores the need for dedicated cyber courts, trained investigators, and specialised enforcement units to ensure that the statutory protections are not merely theoretical but deliver real-world justice.
The Judicial Counter-Offensive: Dismantling the Digital Siege
The Indian judiciary has transitioned from passive observation to an aggressive counter-offensive against “digital arrest” syndicates. Recognizing that these scams erode public confidence in the rule of law, the Supreme Court of India8 and the Rajasthan High Court9 took suo motu cognizance of the crisis, classifying these frauds as a systemic threat to national security and the economy. To strip fraudsters of their digital camouflage, the Supreme Court passed a landmark directive prohibiting the issuance of legal notices and summons via WhatsApp, reinforcing that informal digital channels can never substitute for the sanctity of due process.10
This judicial mandate has empowered a centralized, intelligence-driven crackdown. Under Operation Chakra-V, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)11 has moved beyond isolated probes to dismantle the transnational architecture of these crimes. A significant milestone was reached in December 2025, when the CBI filed a comprehensive chargesheet against a high-value syndicate, utilizing data from coordinated multi-state raids to map a complex web of electronic devices, “mule” accounts, and overseas collaborators. By integrating strict procedural bans with the specialized investigative power of the CBI, India is working to ensure that the digital window to justice is no longer a door for the virtual intruder.
Prevention Alone Is Not Enough, there is Need for Strong Remedial Measures
It is commonly said that prevention is better than cure. While this holds true in principle, it is not sufficient in the context of cybercrime. Public awareness campaigns, digital literacy programs, and advisory notices are essential preventive tools. Educating people about identifying fake calls, messages, and threats can reduce victimisation. However, crimes cannot be eliminated entirely. Despite preventive measures, offences continue to occur. Therefore, alongside prevention, a strong remedial framework is indispensable. Victims need swift remedies, effective investigation, and meaningful redress.
India urgently requires a comprehensive remedial approach to address digital arrest and cybercrime. This must be achieved through robust legislation supported by effective enforcement mechanisms. Specialised cybercrime units with trained personnel should be established to ensure swift and technically sound investigations. On the judicial front, the creation of dedicated special courts to deal exclusively with cyber offences is crucial. These courts should be equipped with modern infrastructure and presided over by judicial officers trained in cyber law and digital evidence. Speedy trials and victim-centric remedies will restore public confidence in the justice system.
Conclusion
The challenge of digital arrest and cybercrime demands vigilance on both legislative and judicial fronts. Technology, while indispensable, must be regulated and safeguarded against misuse. Preventive education and awareness must continue, but equal emphasis must be placed on remedial justice. By strengthening laws, enhancing enforcement, and modernising judicial mechanisms, India can effectively combat this growing menace. The goal must be not only to punish offenders but also to protect innocent citizens and preserve the integrity of the digital justice system in an increasingly connected world.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla, Aarushi Suri (Intern)
