Digital Arrest Scams in India: Legal Gaps, Criminal Liability and the Need for Digital Due Process Reform

17 February, 2026

Share on:

Introduction
India’s rapid digital transformation has expanded access to governance, banking, and communication. However, it has also created fertile ground for a new category of cyber-enabled fraud commonly described as “digital arrest” scams. In these schemes, fraudsters impersonate law enforcement officials, investigative agencies, or judicial authorities through video calls, spoofed numbers, forged documents, and increasingly, AI-generated visuals. Victims are psychologically coerced into believing they are under investigation or imminent arrest and are pressured into transferring money or disclosing confidential information.

The term “digital arrest” has no legal recognition under Indian law. Yet the phenomenon raises important questions about criminal liability, procedural safeguards, and the urgent need to formalise authentication standards for state communications in the digital sphere.

This article examines the legal framework applicable to such scams, identifies procedural gaps, and suggests reforms to strengthen digital due process protections.

What Is a “Digital Arrest” Scam?

A so-called digital arrest typically involves:

• Impersonation of police officers, CBI officials, ED officers, or court personnel.
• Allegations of involvement in serious offences such as money laundering, narcotics trafficking, or cybercrime.
• Continuous video surveillance of the victim to prevent outside consultation.
• Threats of immediate arrest, passport cancellation, or asset freezing.
• Demands for “verification deposits,” “security transfers,” or confidential financial details.

These scams exploit fear, urgency, and perceived authority. Elderly individuals and professionals with limited familiarity with criminal procedure are often targeted.

Legal Position: No Concept of “Digital Arrest” in Indian Law

Under Indian criminal jurisprudence, arrest is a physical act governed by statutory safeguards. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly CrPC) lays down detailed procedures for lawful arrest, including:

• Identification of the arresting officer,
• Communication of grounds of arrest,
• Preparation of arrest memo,
• Production before a magistrate within 24 hours.

There is no statutory mechanism permitting arrest solely through a video call or remote declaration. Therefore, any claim of arrest via WhatsApp, Zoom, or other digital means is inherently fraudulent unless supported by lawful physical procedure.

Applicable Penal Provisions

Although “digital arrest” is not a defined offence, existing laws adequately criminalise its components.

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
Cheating (Section 318 BNS)
Where a person dishonestly induces another to deliver property by deception, criminal liability arises.

Extortion (Section 308 BNS)
Threatening injury—whether to reputation, liberty, or property—to obtain money constitutes extortion.

Impersonation of Public Servant (Section 204 BNS)
Falsely representing oneself as a police officer or public authority attracts punishment.

Criminal Intimidation (Section 351 BNS)
Threats intended to cause alarm fall within the ambit of intimidation.

2. Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66D – Cheating by Personation Using Computer Resources
This provision directly addresses online impersonation used to defraud victims.

Section 66C – Identity Theft
Use of stolen digital signatures, passwords, or identity information is punishable.
Together, these provisions enable prosecution of offenders involved in digital arrest scams.

The Procedural and Structural Gap
While substantive criminal law exists, a structural weakness persists: lack of authenticated digital communication protocols for state authorities.
India has increasingly digitised official processes—e-summons, email notices, online portals. However:

• There is no universally recognised verification system for official video calls.
• Citizens lack a single real-time authentication platform to confirm whether a communication genuinely originates from law enforcement.
• Visual indicators (uniforms, insignia) are easily replicated in a digital environment.

This creates what may be termed a “digital due process gap”—where procedural safeguards designed for physical interactions do not adequately translate into virtual settings.

Psychological and Technological Dimensions
Digital arrest scams are effective because they combine:

1. Authority Bias – People tend to comply with perceived state authority.
2. Urgency Pressure – Immediate action is demanded to prevent arrest.
3. Isolation Tactics – Victims are instructed not to contact family or lawyers.
4. Technological Manipulation – Caller ID spoofing, forged PDFs, AI voice cloning.

As artificial intelligence tools become more accessible, the sophistication of impersonation is likely to increase.

Preventive Measures and Reform Proposals

1. Statutory Digital Authentication Framework
A legally mandated system could include:

• QR-coded official notices linked to government verification portals.
• Digitally signed video summons validated through e-signature certificates.
• Public key infrastructure (PKI) verification for investigative communications.

2. Centralised Verification Portal
A single national platform where citizens can:

• Enter notice numbers,
• Verify officer credentials,
• Confirm case registration details.

3. Mandatory Public Advisory Protocol
Government agencies should clearly state:

No arrest or custodial interrogation is conducted solely through video calls without formal physical procedure.

4. Banking Safeguards

• Cooling-off periods for large transactions initiated during flagged scam calls.
• Enhanced alerts for senior citizens.
• Rapid response freezing mechanisms for reported fraud transfers.

5. Digital Legal Literacy Campaigns
Awareness initiatives should explain:

• Lawful arrest procedures,
• Rights of the accused,
• How to verify official communications,
• Emergency cybercrime helplines (e.g., 1930).

Constitutional Perspective
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. Lawful arrest must follow procedure established by law. Digital impersonation that simulates arrest undermines:

• Due process,
• Personal dignity,
• Access to legal counsel.

Strengthening digital procedural safeguards is therefore not merely a policy concern but a constitutional necessity.

Conclusion
“Digital arrest” is not a legally recognised process in India. It is a cyber-enabled fraud exploiting technological ambiguity and procedural unfamiliarity. Existing criminal provisions under the BNS and IT Act allow prosecution of offenders, yet enforcement alone cannot solve the systemic vulnerability.

India’s next legal frontier lies in formalising digital due process—ensuring that as governance moves online, authentication mechanisms evolve alongside it. Without such reform, the gap between physical legality and digital perception will continue to be exploited.

Robust verification systems, public awareness, and targeted legislative clarity are essential to protect citizens in an era where authority can be convincingly simulated on a screen.