The Supreme Court has told the Centre it must treat digital arrest offence cases as a distinct crime rather than folding them into existing cheating provisions. In late July 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, sitting with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohan, said Parliament needs to define “digital arrest” in statute and prescribe tougher punishment for it, as video-call frauds and deepfakes keep multiplying, according to a report in The Economic Times.
What the Bench Said About the Digital Arrest Offence
The bench was hearing a matter the Supreme Court had taken up on its own motion, or suo motu, after a stream of cases in which victims were told over video calls, purportedly from police or enforcement agencies, that they were under “digital arrest” and had to transfer money or stay on camera to avoid physical detention. Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that such frauds currently get prosecuted using a patchwork of cheating, impersonation, and intimidation provisions never written with an AI-assisted, video-call scam in mind, and said a standalone digital arrest offence with its own definition and sentencing range would give investigators and courts a clearer basis to act.
The bench also flagged deepfakes specifically, noting that fraudsters increasingly use synthetic audio and video, including cloned voices of relatives or fabricated visuals of officials, to make the digital arrest offence more convincing. Justices Bagchi and V Mohan pressed the point that any new law needs to cover deepfake-enabled fraud broadly, since tactics keep shifting faster than a narrowly worded provision could track.
Why Article 142 Cannot Create a New Crime
A recurring theme in the hearing was the limit of the Supreme Court’s own powers. Article 142 of the Constitution lets the court pass orders necessary to do “complete justice” in a case before it, and petitioners had asked whether the court could use that power to treat digital arrest as an offence in the interim, while Parliament works on legislation. The bench was clear it could not: creating a new criminal offence, attaching punishment to it, and defining its elements is a legislative function, not something Article 142 can substitute for, however broad that provision’s remedial reach otherwise is.
That constitutional boundary is why the bench’s language centered on urging, not ordering, the Centre to bring a law. The court can compel disclosure, timelines, and standard operating procedures from government bodies within an ongoing case, but the actual creation of a standalone digital arrest offence has to go through a bill passed by Parliament.
Solicitor General: A Bill May Come This Session
Responding for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that a draft bill covering both digital arrest and deepfake-enabled fraud was under preparation and could be tabled in the ongoing session of Parliament, according to The Times of India. Mehta did not commit to a fixed date, but said the government was working on provisions that would give both phenomena their own defined criminal categories, instead of prosecuting them under general cheating and forgery sections.
Attorney General’s Ask: An RBI SOP on Mule Accounts
Separately, Attorney General R. Venkataramani asked the Reserve Bank of India to prepare a standard operating procedure for restricting debit transactions on accounts suspected of being used as mule accounts, the third-party accounts fraud rings use to quickly move money extracted from digital arrest offence victims before it can be traced or frozen. By the time a victim reports a scam, the money has often already been split across mule accounts and withdrawn, according to Business Standard’s report on the hearing. A clear RBI-mandated SOP would let banks act faster, without waiting for a case-by-case order each time.
How the Case Reached This Point
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the digital arrest problem after a rising volume of complaints showed victims losing savings to callers posing as police, customs, or income-tax officials. Earlier in the proceedings, the court had tasked the Central Bureau of Investigation with coordinating a nationwide response, since these scams typically involve call centers and mule accounts spread across multiple states and countries.
Messaging platforms have also been drawn into the response. Senior advocate and former Union minister Kapil Sibal told the court that WhatsApp was coordinating with the government on measures to curb the spread of digital arrest offence scams and deepfake content on its platform, a parallel track alongside the legislative and law-enforcement steps under discussion.
Why a Standalone Digital Arrest Offence Would Matter
Prosecuting digital arrest scams under general-purpose cheating sections creates friction at almost every stage. Police filing a first information report have to stretch existing definitions to fit a video-call scam, and sentencing ranges do not reflect how organized these scams have become. A dedicated offence, covering impersonation of authority plus a coercive demand for money, would let investigators charge the conduct directly rather than reconstruct it from adjacent provisions.
The deepfake dimension raises the stakes further. As synthetic voice and video tools become cheaper and more convincing, the line between a crude scam call and a believable impersonation of a real official keeps narrowing. Justices Bagchi and V Mohan’s push for the law to cover deepfakes alongside digital arrest reflects a view that a law addressing only the impersonation script would age quickly as tactics shift.
| Aspect | Current position | What the Supreme Court wants |
|---|---|---|
| Legal classification | Prosecuted under general cheating, impersonation, and intimidation provisions | A standalone digital arrest offence with its own definition and sentencing |
| Deepfake fraud | Not separately defined in criminal law | Covered under the same or a linked new provision, per SG Tushar Mehta |
| Mule accounts | Restricted case by case, often after funds are already moved | RBI standard operating procedure for faster, system-wide debit restrictions |
| Court’s own power | Cannot create a new offence via Article 142 | Can direct timelines and compliance, not legislate the offence itself |
| Legislative status | No dedicated bill yet passed | Draft bill possible in the current Parliament session, per the SG |
What Happens Next
- The Centre is expected to update the Supreme Court on the draft bill’s progress in a future hearing.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta indicated the bill could be tabled in the ongoing Parliament session, though no fixed date was confirmed.
- The RBI is expected to respond to the Attorney General’s request for a standard operating procedure on mule-account debit restrictions.
- The CBI’s coordination role on digital arrest cases is expected to continue alongside any new legislation.
- WhatsApp’s coordination with the government, as flagged by Kapil Sibal, is expected to continue as a parallel, non-legislative track.
Limitations and Open Questions
As of this hearing, the digital arrest offence remains a proposal rather than enacted law. No bill text has been made public, so the exact definition, punishment range, and scope of deepfake coverage are not yet known. The Solicitor General’s statement that a bill “may” come in the current session is not a firm commitment. The RBI has not yet published the standard operating procedure the Attorney General requested, and reporting on WhatsApp’s coordination with the government is based on court submissions, not independent confirmation from the company.
Reader FAQ
What is a “digital arrest” scam?
It is a fraud in which a caller, often over video, falsely claims to be a police or enforcement official and tells the victim they are under a “digital arrest,” pressuring them to transfer money or stay on camera.
Why isn’t digital arrest already a specific crime?
Cases are prosecuted using general cheating, impersonation, and intimidation provisions written before this kind of video-call fraud existed, which the Supreme Court says makes prosecution less precise.
Can the Supreme Court create the digital arrest offence itself?
No. The bench held that Article 142 lets it act to do complete justice in a case but cannot create a new criminal offence, which is a legislative function reserved for Parliament.
When could a law be passed?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court a draft bill covering digital arrest and deepfakes may be tabled in the current Parliament session, but no confirmed date has been announced.
Bottom line: The Supreme Court has pushed the Centre to treat the digital arrest offence as its own crime, covering deepfakes and backed by tougher punishment, while making clear it cannot legislate that change itself. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta says a bill may arrive this session, the Attorney General wants an RBI mule-account SOP, and CBI and WhatsApp coordination continue meanwhile — but until Parliament passes a law, digital arrest scams are still prosecuted under older, general-purpose provisions.
Primary sources
- Supreme Court pushes Centre to define digital arrest as standalone crime with tougher punishment amid rising deepfakes, frauds, fake calls — The Economic Times
- Centre may table bill to make deepfakes, digital arrest separate offences — The Times of India
- SC suggests digital arrest to be separate offence under criminal law — Business Standard
Related Topic Express coverage
Featured image: Photo via Unsplash (photo-1563986768609-322da13575f3); free to use under the Unsplash License. Illustrative only.
