The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Central government over the increasing number of digital arrest scams and cyber frauds targeting citizens across India.
The court highlighted the urgent need for coordinated action between the Centre and state governments to curb such crimes.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joyamala Bagchi sent notices to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with suo motu proceedings initiated by the court.
The top court took suo motu cognisance following a complaint from a senior citizen couple in Ambala, dated September 21. The couple was defrauded of their life savings between September 1 and 16 through a digital arrest scam.
According to the complaint, the victims were contacted by individuals impersonating officials from the CBI, the Intelligence Bureau, and the judiciary through video calls and phone conversations. The fraudsters displayed fake Supreme Court orders on WhatsApp and during calls, carrying the alleged signature of former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna.
Under threat of arrest based on these forged documents, the couple transferred Rs 1.5 crore through multiple bank transactions. Two FIRs were later filed at Ambala’s Cyber Crime Branch. The court noted that the case showed signs of an organised criminal network preying on senior citizens.
While dictating the order, Justice Surya Kant said that ordinarily the court would have directed the state police to expedite the investigation and take it to its logical conclusion. He, however, expressed shock that the fraudsters had fabricated multiple judicial orders in the name of the Supreme Court of India, including a freeze order dated September 1 purportedly issued under the PMLA, bearing forged signatures of a judge, an officer of the Enforcement Directorate, and a court stamp as well.
The court observed that there had been a “brazen criminal misuse” of the name, seal, and authority of the Bombay High Court, with fake claims involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI.
Justice Kant said that judicial orders with fake signatures of judges struck at the very foundation of the public trust system in the judiciary and that such grave criminal acts could not be treated as ordinary or routine offences of cheating or cybercrime.
The bench added that it was not an isolated incident and noted that it had been widely reported many times in the media that such incidents had taken place in different parts of the country.
Notices were also issued to the Haryana government and Ambala’s Cybercrime Unit in connection with the case.