Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre, on Tuesday, informed the Supreme Court that a draft Bill dealing with digital arrest scams, deepfakes and other emerging cybercrimes may be introduced in Parliament during the ongoing session as the court noted the need to modernise the legal framework governing cyber offences. The submission came during the hearing of the suo motu proceedings concerning victims of digital arrest-related frauds, where the Bench observed that while existing criminal laws cover offences such as extortion and cheating, technological developments may require a fresh legislative approach.
The Bench was hearing In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents, when Attorney General R. Venkataramani placed before it a detailed status note on behalf of the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) constituted pursuant to the Court’s earlier directions. Informing the Court that the IDC had been working closely with the Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) and other stakeholders, the Attorney General submitted that the committee had made “excellent progress” in identifying systemic gaps and formulating coordinated solutions before placing its final report before the Court.
Centre Details Measures Taken Against Digital Arrest Scams
Opening his submissions, the Attorney General R Venkatramani informed the Bench that the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) had, over the last few months, held several meetings with different ministries and regulators to evolve a coordinated response against cyber-enabled financial frauds.
He then walked the Court through the measures already initiated by different agencies, including the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for temporary debit holds to prevent money mule accounts, data-sharing arrangements between RBI and I4C, customer protection measures relating to electronic banking transactions, constitution of an inter-agency working group to identify the root causes of mule accounts, CBI’s verification portal for fake notices, MeitY’s adjudication portal under the Information Technology Act, telecom reforms, SIM binding by intermediaries and the establishment of grievance redressal and money restoration mechanisms for victims of cyber fraud.
The Court was sought to direct nationwide implementation of the RBI’s SOP, operationalisation of grievance redressal and money restoration modules across States and Union Territories, expeditious disposal of disputes relating to frozen bank accounts arising out of cyber frauds and establishment of State Cybercrime Coordination Centres across the country.
Court Moots Standalone Law, Statutory Apex Body to Combat Emerging Cybercrime
After hearing the status report, the Bench observed that although several agencies had begun taking coordinated action, there was still a need to examine whether the existing institutional architecture was adequate. The Court remarked:
“
“The note indicates that different kinds of measures have been taken by different agencies. Two things probably need to be addressed. One is that, why don’t you have one structured organisation which acts as an apex body? Otherwise, a part will be operated by the CBI, another part by the banks…”
Responding to the concern, Attorney General R. Venkataramani submitted that such a coordinating mechanism was already functioning through the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC). He explained that the Committee had been constituted pursuant to the Court’s earlier suggestion and was now serving as the central monitoring and supervisory body, receiving inputs from all stakeholder agencies, coordinating their efforts and providing an institutional platform for inter-departmental decision-making. He maintained that the IDC was effectively performing the role of an apex body envisaged by the Court.
The Bench then turned to the legal framework governing digital arrest scams and questioned whether Parliament ought to create a stand-alone penal offence specifically dealing with such crimes. Observing that the present legal framework merely captures different facets of the conduct through existing offences, the Court said:
“
“Some kind of a statutory and legislative force behind that. This digital arrest itself or any related cybercrime… do you need to define it formally in your penal law? It’s a clear case of extortion. It involves robbery, to my mind. There are elements, incidents of robbery, dacoity, everything is there. But then, do you need to define it as an independent, stand-alone offence with a very serious penal consequence? Along with the provision that his assets should be seized immediately.”
Responding to the Court’s observations, the law officer informed the Bench that legislative changes were already underway. Solicitor General stated:
“
“There is a draft bill which is coming up, possibly in this session, which takes care of this digital arrest, deepfakes, etc.”
The Court welcomed the development but observed that legislative reform would have to go beyond isolated amendments. The Bench remarked:
“
“What you are saying is, we will change the architecture again. Also contemporarise to some extent Naya Samhita. But the IT Act remains frozen to 2000. Law changes, procedural changes are necessary.Section 79 requires a relook. Because the idea of safe harbour is an illusion when it comes to the intermediaries and the way algorithms promote some information. secondly is the detail to be utilized for criminal activities. That needs to be addressed. There is a gap in this special law.
The SG agreed, submitting:
“
“Yes, it needs to advance with time…A lot of technical people are working on it.” The AG also submitted that: “we know it is entrenching upon the law. Defects are already covered by the IT rules, but perhaps not as much as we would like. We need to travel along with it.”
To this Justice Joylamya Bagchi remarked that:
“
“The primary legislation has to be amended.”
The discussion thereafter expanded to the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, deepfakes and rapidly evolving technology. The Court stressed that legal institutions must evolve alongside technological developments.
During the hearing, the Court also considered with intervention applications filed by WhatsApp and other stakeholders. While acknowledging that intermediaries were entitled to place their views before the authorities, the Bench indicated that technical issues concerning chat applications should, in the first instance, be examined by the IDC, which was already engaging with the platforms. The Bench, however, did not issue any immediate directions on the intervention applications or the concerns raised by the intermediaries. Instead, it observed that the issues should first be examined by the Inter-Departmental Committee, which was already engaging with the stakeholders.