The Supreme Court on Monday sought details of digital arrests pending investigation across the country as it considered a uniform investigation by an independent agency, preferably the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi gave a week for the information to be furnished. “The states and UTs [Union territories] are directed to file details of cyber arrest pending investigation in their jurisdictions.” The matter will be taken up next on November 3.
The court was hearing a suo motu petition over the digital arrests, a sophisticated form of cyber fraud in which criminals impersonate law enforcement officers, intelligence officials, or even judges to coerce and extort money, particularly from senior citizens, using forged orders and fake proceedings.
On October 17, the court issued notice to the Centre, the CBI, and the Haryana government, expressing concern over the issue. The move came after the court received a letter from a senior citizen couple in Ambala, saying some people impersonating CBI officers on a WhatsApp video call threatened seizure of their property and defrauded them of ₹1 crore based on a forged Supreme Court order.
The Centre told the court that the issue has three limbs broadly classified as financial, technical, and human.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta cited his discussion with the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre head and the top CBI officials and said some who go abroad and realise they are defrauded are employed in these crimes.
The court noted the international linkages of such frauds. “We expect the CBI to take up the investigation. Only they can do it. Pan-India, these digital arrests have happened, and nothing is going to happen unless there is some uniform investigation.”
Mehta referred to the challenges investigating agencies face and said that often the source of the scam calls is untraceable. He said there is what is called “scam compound” in certain countries for such crimes. Mehta said these criminals prefer destinations that do not have a mutual legal assistance treaty with India.
The court asked Mehta to indicate whether CBI, if directed to undertake the investigation, has the wherewithal for such a probe. “We will issue directions, not on a one-time basis but on a composite one. Today, we are only asking the states to provide the list of FIRs [first information reports] concerning this scam so that they are not caught unaware of the order that we intend to pass.”
The court suggested it can direct the states to provide manpower to the CBI for carrying out investigations, like it did in the case of the agency’s probe into the subvention scam involving a nexus between builders and banks in defrauding homebuyers.
“In due course, the CBI can inform us what challenges it may face. They may need help from the Interpol or the local police of the country involved. They may even suggest names of technocrats or cyber experts who can be involved at an appropriate stage.”
Additional advocate general Lokesh Singhal, who appeared for Haryana, informed the court that the state has received several other complaints of digital arrest and was pursuing an investigation.
On October 17, the court called the forgery of documents and brazen criminal misuse of its name, seal, and judicial authority a matter of grave concern, striking at the foundation of public trust in the judicial system and the rule of law.
