Loading…
The Supreme Court issued a detailed set of nationwide directions on 4 August 2026 to strengthen action against digital arrest scams, in suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents.
The Reserve Bank of India was directed to prepare and circulate, within four weeks, a Standard Operating Procedure for banks on mule accounts and accounts linked to cyber-enabled fraud.
States and Union Territories must operationalise the Grievance Redressal Module and the Money Restoration Module framed under the Ministry of Home Affairs SOP of 2 January 2026, and notify State Cyber Crime Coordination Centres within four weeks.
The Court noted that the e-Zero FIR mechanism was functional in only 19 states and that just 14 states had notified their Cyber Crime Coordination Centres.
Complaints on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal fell from 1,23,672 in 2024 to 58,249 in 2025 and to 16,377 by 30 June 2026, with about Rs 18.05 crore restored to victims in 36,290 cases.
A 'digital arrest' is not a legal category at all — no law in India permits a person to be detained over a video call, and that is precisely the fiction the fraud depends on. Scammers impersonate police officers, CBI or Enforcement Directorate officials, or judges, telling the victim that a parcel in their name contained contraband or that their account is implicated in money laundering. Forged warrants and court orders are produced on screen, the victim is kept under continuous video surveillance for hours or days so they cannot consult anyone, and money is extracted as a 'verification deposit'. The money then vanishes through mule accounts — bank accounts opened with stolen or fabricated identities, or rented from their genuine holders, whose sole function is to receive the proceeds and pass them on through several further accounts. Layering the money this way is what defeats recovery, because by the time a complaint is filed the funds have moved through accounts in different states. That is why the Court's central direction was aimed not at the impersonation but at the plumbing: an RBI standard operating procedure for identifying, freezing and investigating mule accounts.
Simple Analogy: The impersonation is the con; the mule account is the getaway car. Policing the costume is far less effective than seizing the vehicle.
The nodal agency for coordinating action against cybercrime in India; states must consult it while adopting the e-Zero FIR mechanism
The central platform on which citizens report cyber offences; the source of the complaint data placed before the Court
Regulates banking operations under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; directed to frame the SOP for banks on mule accounts and temporary debit holds
State-level bodies meant to coordinate the cybercrime response; the Court directed the remaining states to notify and operationalise them within four weeks
Allows an FIR in a cyber fraud case to be registered regardless of territorial jurisdiction, so a victim is not turned away because the offence occurred elsewhere; the Court directed nationwide adoption in consultation with I4C.
The framework under which the Grievance Redressal Module and the Money Restoration Module were created; states and UTs were directed to operationalise both immediately.
The Court's power to take cognisance of a matter on its own motion, exercised here after a case involving forged court and agency orders.
The statute under which the RBI regulates banking and can direct banks on account holds, freezes and identification of suspicious accounts.
GS Paper 3 > Internal Security: Cyber Security; GS Paper 2 > Judiciary and Government Interventions
General Awareness > Banking Awareness > Fraud Prevention and RBI Directions
General Awareness > Current Affairs > Judiciary and Cyber Security
General Awareness > Current Affairs > National
A cyber fraud in which offenders impersonate police, investigative agencies or judicial officers and hold a victim under fake detention over video call to extract money; it has no legal existence.
A bank account used to receive, transfer or layer the proceeds of crime on behalf of another person, often opened with stolen or fabricated identity documents.
A mechanism permitting registration of an FIR in a cyber fraud case irrespective of the jurisdiction in which the offence occurred.
The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, the nodal agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs for coordinating action against cybercrime.
Action taken by a court on its own motion, without a party approaching it.