Centre may table bill to make deepfakes, digital arrest separate offences
The government indicated that a draft bill is being prepared to make "digital arrest" scams and AI-generated deepfakes distinct, standalone criminal offences, with a timeline for introduction not yet finalised
The proposal was outlined before the Supreme Court, which is hearing a suo motu case on digital arrest fraud registered in October 2025
The bench recommended that once a prima facie case is established against an accused based on cogent evidence, assets linked to the fraud should be frozen to prevent dissipation before conviction
The court also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to remain the nodal agency for large-value digital fraud cases and asked the Reserve Bank of India, the Department of Telecommunications and intermediaries to strengthen protocols against suspicious transactions
The suo motu proceedings originated after senior citizens reported losing about ₹1.5 crore between September 1–16, 2025 to fraudsters impersonating officials of the CBI, the Intelligence Bureau and the judiciary over video calls
"Digital Arrest" and the Gap in Existing Criminal Law
"Digital arrest" is not a legally recognised procedure anywhere in Indian criminal law — no statute permits an investigating agency to detain or arrest a person through a video call or online conference. It is a coined term for a fraud technique in which scammers impersonate law-enforcement or judicial officials to coerce victims into transferring money out of fear of arrest.
Key Details
- Currently prosecuted as a patchwork of existing offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — cheating (Section 318), extortion (Section 308), and impersonating a public servant (Section 204) — alongside cheating by personation under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000
- The BNS, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in July 2024, contains no dedicated provision for this offence, since the fraud pattern is procedural (misuse of video-calling and forged authority) rather than a distinct substantive crime
- The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), under the Ministry of Home Affairs, is the nodal body tracking such scams and coordinating with state cyber cells
- A proposed standalone law would create a specific offence with defined ingredients (impersonation of authority + coercion + digital medium) rather than relying on cheating and extortion provisions designed for offline fraud
The proposed bill would convert digital arrest from a set of borrowed offences into one clearly defined crime, closing the gap that currently forces courts to stretch general cheating/extortion provisions to fit a distinctly digital fraud method.
Deepfakes and the IT Rules, 2021 (as amended)
A "deepfake" is synthetic audio-visual content generated or altered using AI so that it appears authentic, and it is increasingly used in impersonation-based fraud, including to fabricate "arrest warrants" or impersonate officials in scam calls. India currently regulates this indirectly through intermediary obligations rather than a standalone criminal offence.
Key Details
- The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as amended, defines "synthetically generated information" as content artificially or algorithmically created, generated, modified or altered using a computer resource so that it reasonably appears authentic or true
- Amendments require significant social media intermediaries to ensure such content is labelled or embedded with a permanent, unique identifier — for visual content, the label must cover at least 10% of the display surface
- Removal obligations for unlawful synthetic content no longer require a prior court order or government notice — intermediaries must act on "reasonable efforts" once flagged
- These Rules operate under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 (intermediary safe-harbour and due diligence), not as a standalone penal offence — hence the proposed bill would add a distinct, punishable "deepfake offence" for the first time
The Supreme Court flagged that deepfakes are now actively used to make impersonation scams more convincing, and the proposed bill would criminalise the creation/use of deepfakes for fraud directly, rather than only regulating platform-level takedown as the IT Rules currently do.
Judicial Prompting of Legislation — Separation of Powers Angle
Courts in India can direct the executive to consider filling a legislative gap (as seen here, and historically in cases like Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines pending law on workplace sexual harassment, later codified as the POSH Act, 2013), but courts cannot themselves create a new criminal offence — that power rests with Parliament under Article 245 read with the Union and Concurrent Lists (Entries on criminal law and procedure).
Key Details
- Criminal law and criminal procedure fall under the Concurrent List (List III), entries 1 and 2, of the Seventh Schedule, allowing both Parliament and state legislatures to legislate, subject to Article 254 on repugnancy
- Judicial directions of this kind function as an interim, non-binding nudge — akin to guidelines "until Parliament enacts a law," a doctrinal approach traced to the Supreme Court's power under Article 142 to do "complete justice"
- Asset-freezing pending trial (as recommended here) would need statutory backing, since attachment of proceeds of crime otherwise typically proceeds under laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provisions on attachment
The bench's recommendation is a now-familiar pattern of the judiciary flagging a legislative vacuum and asking the executive to legislate — final enactment power, offence definitions, and punishment quantum remain with Parliament.
- Suo motu case on digital arrest scams before the Supreme Court: registered October 2025
- Trigger case: senior citizens defrauded of about ₹1.5 crore between September 1–16, 2025, by persons impersonating CBI, Intelligence Bureau and judiciary officials
- BNS, 2023 provisions currently invoked: Section 318 (cheating), Section 308 (extortion), Section 204 (impersonating a public servant)
- IT Act, 2000 provision invoked: Section 66D (cheating by personation using computer resource)
- IT Rules, 2021 (amended) mandate: visible AI-content labels covering at least 10% of visual surface area for significant social media intermediaries
- Nodal cyber-fraud coordination body: Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs