A Direct Assault on Justice: Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Notice of 'Digital Arrest' Scams Involving Forged Judicial Orders.


17 October 2025 Forgery >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has filed a historic suo motu (on its own initiative) writ petition, representing a stern judicial response to a fast growing and deeply alarming type of organized crime: the "Digital Arrest" scam of blatant forgery of judicial orders as well as official documents.

The issue, named In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents (Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3/2025), was heard by a bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi on October 17, 2025.

 

 

The Serious Facts of the Complaint:

The trigger for this unprecedented judicial intervention was a complaint filed by a senior citizen couple who were cheated of a whopping Rs. 1,05,50,000 between September 3 and September 16, 2025.
The modus operandi, as outlined in the complaint, is chillingly sophisticated:
  • Impersonation: Cheats approached the victims, impersonating high-ranking officials from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and even judicial officials, through telephone and video calls.
  • Forgery-based Coercion: The criminals also produced forged Supreme Court of India orders and other government documents through WhatsApp and video conferencing.
  • Extortion: The victims were coerced into transferring life savings from their bank multiple times, under the immediate threat of arrest and confiscation of property using these forged documents.
While the victims have already filed two First Information Reports (FIRs No. 76/2025 and 77/2025) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at the Cyber Crime Branch, Ambala, the Supreme Court viewed the matter as far beyond a routine case of cheating.

Fabrication Strikes at the Rule of Law:

The Court expressed its profound dismay—or "aghast," in the language of the order—at the level of fabrication involved. The fraudulent documents included:
  • A fabricated "Freeze Order" of 03.09.2025 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
  • An "Arrest Order" having the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, stamp and a Court stamp.
  • A "Surveillance Order" containing judicial signatures that have been forged.
  • Mentions of fake proceedings in the Bombay High Court and false suggestions of CBI/ED investigations.
The Court was categorical in declaring that forgery of judicial orders with forged signatures of Judges amounts to a direct and serious attack on the dignity and majesty of the judicial institution and hits "at the very foundation of public trust in the judicial system." Such acts, the Court declared, cannot be characterized as mere or ordinary offences of cheating or cybercrime.
Pan-India Action and Coordinated Response Mandated

The Supreme Court took judicial notice of credible media reports showing that this is not an isolated case, but one of an increasing and organized trend nationwide.

Accordingly, the Court held that a strong action on an all-India level is needed at the earliest. This calls for joint efforts of the Central and State Police forces to "unearth the full extent of this criminal enterprise" against innocent citizens, especially elderly citizens, by means of forgery, cyber extortion, and 'cyber arrest.'

Directions Issued:

In order to enable a thorough investigation and coordinated action, the Court directed notice to the following prime authorities:
  • Union of India, by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
  • The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Haryana.
  • The Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime, Ambala, who has been ordered to submit a status report of the investigation so far.
The importance of the issue is highlighted by the Court's official invitation to the erudite Attorney General for India to help the Court in this momentous proceeding.

The case is now scheduled to be heard anew on October 27, 2025, reflective of the judiciary's determination for prompt and firm action against this new threat to the rule of law and public safety.