Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant that the Centre was preparing legislation covering digital arrests, deepfakes and related cyber offences. The proposed Bill could be introduced during the ongoing session of Parliament, although its final provisions and penalties have yet to be disclosed.
The court said digital arrest fraud should be clearly defined as a standalone offence carrying stringent punishment. It also suggested empowering authorities to freeze the assets of accused persons after a reasoned preliminary finding establishes their involvement, potentially improving the chances of recovering money transferred through networks of bank accounts and payment channels.
Digital arrest is not recognised as a lawful procedure. The term describes a scam in which criminals impersonate police officers, investigators, judges, telecom officials or financial regulators and falsely accuse victims of offences such as money laundering, drug trafficking or identity theft. Victims are ordered to remain available on video calls, isolate themselves from family members and transfer funds for supposed verification or investigation.
Fraudsters increasingly use deepfake video, cloned voices, forged court documents and fabricated police credentials to make these operations appear authentic. Artificial intelligence tools can reproduce the voice or appearance of public officials, relatives and corporate executives, making it harder for victims to identify manipulation during high-pressure calls.
The Supreme Court’s intervention forms part of continuing proceedings initiated to address digital arrest cases across the country. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi earlier directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a nationwide probe, prioritising cases that specifically involved digital detention tactics before expanding scrutiny to other forms of cyber-enabled financial crime.
The court has also taken a restrictive approach towards bail for people accused of participating in such operations. It indicated that bail should ordinarily be denied unless an accused person demonstrates extraordinary grounds, comparing the organised siphoning of household savings to robbery and dacoity rather than treating it as an ordinary white-collar offence.
Investigators face difficulties because money is commonly divided among multiple “mule” accounts within minutes of a victim making a transfer. The funds may then be converted into cryptocurrency, withdrawn in cash or routed through overseas accounts. Scam centres operating outside the country often rely on recruiters, call handlers, document forgers and account providers located across several jurisdictions.
Older people have suffered some of the largest individual losses. Criminals frequently target retirees with substantial savings, using personal information obtained from leaked databases or social media to build convincing allegations. Some victims have remained under continuous video surveillance for days, believing they were prohibited from speaking to relatives or lawyers.
The court has questioned whether banks and payment intermediaries are responding quickly enough to unusual transactions. Large transfers from accounts with little previous activity, payments to newly created beneficiaries and repeated movement through multiple accounts can provide warning signals. Judges have sought stronger alert systems and closer coordination among banks, telecom companies, police forces, financial regulators and the national cybercrime reporting network.
A dedicated law could remove uncertainty over how digital arrest cases should be registered and prosecuted. At present, investigators rely on provisions covering cheating, impersonation, criminal intimidation, forgery, conspiracy and offences under information technology legislation. These provisions punish parts of the conduct but do not expressly describe the combined use of fabricated authority, remote confinement and technology-assisted extortion.
Legislation on deepfakes will require careful drafting because synthetic media also has legitimate applications in cinema, education, accessibility and commercial production. Legal specialists have argued that criminal liability should focus on deceptive intent, consent, identifiable harm and financial or reputational damage rather than the creation of altered content alone.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
