NEW DELHI : The Supreme Court on Monday expressed rare anguish over the growing epidemic of “digital arrest” scams, refusing to grant bail to the accused in a case involving a 72-year-old lawyer who lost her life savings. The Bench, led by Justice Surya Kant, warned that the exploitation of elderly citizens through coercive cyber-fraud now demands “unusual intervention” by the judiciary.
A Crime That Felt ‘Very Real’
When a 72-year-old woman lawyer received a call earlier this year from men claiming to represent law enforcement agencies, the panic that followed was swift and overwhelming. The callers said she faced imminent arrest in a fabricated criminal case unless she transferred money immediately to “verify” her identity. Convinced by the tone and precision of the impersonation, she paid out more than ₹3.29 crore, draining nearly all her savings.
On Monday (November 17, 2025), the Supreme Court signaled a dramatic shift in its handling of such cases. Appearing for the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, advocate Vipin Nair told the Bench that the scamsters’ performance their scripts, official jargon, and psychological pressure had sounded “very real” to the victim. Justice Surya Kant, visibly affected by the account, said senior citizens deceived in this manner deserved “unusual orders” from the court.
Judicial Alarm Over an Expanding Cybercrime
The Bench’s urgency stems from a confidential report placed before the court during a November 3 hearing. The document revealed that fraudsters have siphoned off more than ₹3,000 crore through digital arrest scams in just the past few years. Most victims, the report noted, are elderly individuals who are less familiar with fast-evolving digital vulnerabilities.
What distinguishes these cases is not merely financial loss, Justice Kant observed, but the coercive nature of the deception a psychological ambush rather than a conventional fraud.
“We have to deal with these cases sternly so that the right message is sent,” he said in court. “An unusual phenomenon needs unusual intervention.”
The accused in the present case, arrested soon after an FIR was registered in May, were poised to receive statutory bail. The Supreme Court’s decision to step in, freezing that process, underscores the judiciary’s growing willingness to treat digital arrest scams as a public emergency rather than isolated incidents.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
A Scam Built on Fear and Acting Precision
Digital arrest frauds rely on a complex choreography of impersonation. Scammers typically pose as police officers, judges, CBI agents, or cyber-crime officials. They claim to be investigating crimes involving the victim’s phone number, Aadhaar, or bank account. Through video calls staged in rooms made to resemble police stations or court offices, victims are pressured into staying “under surveillance,” sometimes for hours. The ordeal often ends with the coerced transfer of money.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the court that the social and economic impact of this category of fraud was “beyond what we had expected.” Each incident, he warned, leaves the victim not only financially devastated but psychologically shaken, amplifying fear within entire communities.
Justice Kant said the court was prepared to issue stringent directions to strengthen the hands of law-enforcement agencies. He noted that these scams exploit trust in public institutions and weaponize confusion a combination that requires a coordinated legal response.
Calls for a National-Level Crackdown
In earlier hearings, the Supreme Court had floated the possibility of tasking the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with a nationwide probe into digital arrest syndicates. These criminal networks, often operating across state borders and sometimes from outside India, employ forged documents and impersonation scripts modeled on real administrative procedures.
The growing losses, coupled with the emotional trauma of elderly victims, have pushed the court to treat digital arrests as a systemic threat rather than a niche crime. As the current case awaits further hearings, the Bench has signaled that its upcoming orders will aim to reshape how agencies pursue, dismantle, and prevent such frauds.
