The court issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the CBI Director, Haryana government and Superintendent of Police, Ambala to consider what steps could be taken to curb these crimes

The Supreme Court on Friday took suo motu (on its own motion) cognisance of the growing menace of “digital arrest” scams -- a sophisticated form of cyber fraud in which criminals impersonate law enforcement officers, intelligence officials, or even judges to coerce and extort money from victims, particularly senior citizens, using forged court orders and fake proceedings.

The court’s intervention came after a 73-year-old woman from Ambala, Haryana, wrote a detailed letter to the Supreme Court, describing how she and her husband were virtually “detained” by scammers who produced fake Supreme Court orders and forced them to transfer over ₹1 crore. The fraudsters, she said, used forged documents purporting to bear the signature of former Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna.

Taking note of the gravity of the issue, the court registered a suo motu case titled “In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents.”

A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing the matter, expressed serious concern over the increasing incidents of judicial forgery and the brazen misuse of the court’s authority by cybercriminals.

“The forgery of documents and the criminal misuse of the name, seal and judicial authority of this court or the high courts is a matter of grave concern. The fabrication of judicial orders bearing forged signatures of judges strikes at the very foundation of the public trust in the judicial system besides the rule of law,” stated the bench.

Calling the act “a direct assault on the dignity of the institution,” the bench noted that such crimes could not be viewed as mere acts of cheating or cyber fraud. “Such grave criminal acts cannot be treated as an ordinary or routine offence of cheating or cybercrime. They undermine the faith that citizens repose in the courts and the justice delivery system,” it observed.

The bench said it was “aghast” to discover that the fraudsters had fabricated multiple judicial orders in the name of the Supreme Court of India, including a purported “freeze order” dated September 1, supposedly issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and bearing forged signatures of a judge, an officer of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and even a fabricated court seal.

“Ordinarily, we would have directed the state police to expedite the investigation and take it to its logical conclusion. We are, however, shocked that the fraudsters have gone to the extent of fabricating judicial orders of the Supreme Court. This is not merely a crime against individuals; it is a crime against the institution itself,” said the bench.

The top court added that the issue transcended individual cases and had wider national implications. “Various fictitious proceedings before the Bombay High Court and false claims of investigation by CBI and ED were also used by these fraudsters. The brazenness of such criminal conduct shows a disturbing trend where the prestige and sanctity of judicial authority are being exploited to rob citizens,” it noted.

The court also observed that such scams were increasingly targeting elderly citizens, many of whom were isolated or easily intimidated. “These cases indicate a pattern of organised criminal activities targeting senior citizens. It appears that the criminals are operating in a highly coordinated manner, using new technologies and fake identities to terrorise people into submission,” the bench said.

According to the complaint received by the Supreme Court and addressed to the Chief Justice of India, the Ambala-based couple was defrauded between September 1 and 16. The fraudsters, posing as officers from the CBI, Intelligence Bureau (IB), and judiciary, contacted them through video conferencing and messaging platforms such as WhatsApp. They displayed forged court orders on screen, purportedly from the Supreme Court, and threatened arrest if the victims failed to comply. Under pressure, the couple transferred nearly ₹1.5 crore through multiple bank transactions.

Taking judicial notice of the trend, the bench remarked: “The instant case is not a solitary instance. It has been widely reported in the media that such incidents have taken place in different parts of the country. We are constrained to observe that this phenomenon appears to be spreading, posing a serious challenge to both law enforcement and the justice system.”