Author: Sukkhdev Dawar, CPJ College, GGSIPU
To the Point
In recent years, India has witnessed a disturbing rise in cases of so-called “digital arrests,” where individuals are coerced, threatened, or psychologically restrained through digital means by fraudsters or even by misuse of authority. These incidents often involve impersonation of law enforcement officials via video calls, emails, or messaging platforms, wherein victims are falsely informed that they are under investigation or arrest for serious offences such as money laundering, narcotics trafficking, or cybercrimes. The victims are then compelled to remain isolated, transfer money, or comply with illegal demands under the belief that they are legally detained.
The concept of “digital arrest” has no explicit statutory recognition under Indian law. Arrest, as understood in criminal jurisprudence, involves physical custody or restraint by lawful authority following due process. However, the misuse of technology has created a grey area where psychological detention and coercion occur without physical confinement. This article examines the legal validity of digital arrests in India, the manner in which they are abused, and the safeguards available under constitutional, statutory, and judicial frameworks.
Use of Legal Jargon
The phenomenon of digital arrest implicates core principles of criminal jurisprudence, constitutional safeguards, and procedural due process. Arrest, under Indian law, must comply with the procedure established by law as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any deprivation of personal liberty without lawful authority is unconstitutional. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) governs the manner, grounds, and procedure of arrest, emphasizing transparency, legality, and accountability.
Digital arrests often involve impersonation, criminal intimidation, cheating, and identity theft, attracting provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The absence of physical custody does not dilute the violation of fundamental rights, as psychological restraint and coercion can amount to unlawful detention. The misuse of digital platforms to simulate legal authority undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The Proof
Legal Position on Arrest in India
Arrest in India is a coercive act whereby a person is taken into custody by lawful authority to answer a criminal charge. The CrPC provides detailed provisions governing arrest, particularly Sections 41, 41A, 46, and 50. Section 46 CrPC explicitly states that arrest involves actual touching or confinement of the body, unless there is submission to custody by word or action. Thus, arrest necessarily involves physical custody or control.
Further, Article 22 of the Constitution grants specific safeguards to arrested persons, including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and the right to consult a legal practitioner of one’s choice. These safeguards cannot be bypassed through virtual or digital means. Therefore, any claim of arrest communicated solely through phone calls, video calls, or messages without physical custody and legal procedure lacks statutory validity.
Nature of Digital Arrests
Digital arrests typically involve cybercriminals posing as officials from agencies such as the CBI, ED, or local police. Victims are shown fake arrest warrants, fabricated ID cards, or manipulated video calls to create an illusion of authority. They are instructed not to contact family members, remain confined to a room, or transfer funds to “safe accounts.” Though no physical restraint exists, the victim’s liberty is effectively curtailed through fear and deception.
Such acts amount to illegal detention, criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, cheating under Section 420 IPC, and identity theft under Section 66C of the IT Act. When committed by private individuals, these acts are plainly illegal. Even if committed by public officials without authority of law, they would violate constitutional protections and attract departmental and criminal liability.
Abstract
The rise of digital arrests in India represents a new-age threat facilitated by technological advancements and low public awareness. Despite lacking legal sanction, digital arrests exploit fear of law enforcement and procedural ignorance to deprive individuals of liberty and property. This article analyses the constitutional and statutory framework governing arrest in India, highlighting that digital arrests have no legal validity. It further explores the misuse of authority and technology in perpetuating such practices and evaluates judicial pronouncements that reinforce procedural safeguards. The article concludes by proposing legal, administrative, and societal safeguards to prevent abuse and protect citizens’ fundamental rights in the digital era.
Case Laws
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court laid down detailed guidelines governing arrest and detention to prevent custodial abuse. The Court emphasized that arrest is not merely a mechanical act but a serious interference with personal liberty. It mandated transparency, documentation, and accountability during arrest procedures. The principles laid down in this case make it clear that any form of detention, physical or otherwise, must conform to established legal procedures. Digital arrests, which bypass all such safeguards, are inherently unconstitutional.
2. Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013)
The Supreme Court reiterated that arrest involves taking a person into custody by lawful authority and that deprivation of liberty must strictly adhere to procedure established by law. The judgment reinforces the idea that mere communication or assertion of arrest without lawful custody has no legal standing.
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
This case addressed the misuse of arrest powers and emphasized that arrest should not be automatic or mechanical. The Court directed police officers to justify the necessity of arrest under Section 41 CrPC and encouraged the use of notice of appearance under Section 41A. The judgment is relevant in the context of digital arrests, as it underscores that arrest is a regulated power subject to judicial scrutiny and cannot be exercised arbitrarily, let alone digitally.
4. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
While primarily dealing with the right to privacy, this judgment expanded the scope of Article 21 to include informational privacy and protection against arbitrary state action. Digital arrests often involve unlawful surveillance, coercive communication, and violation of privacy, making them inconsistent with the constitutional principles laid down in this case.
Conclusion
Digital arrests in India represent a dangerous convergence of technological misuse and procedural ignorance. The concept has no legal recognition under Indian law, as arrest necessarily involves physical custody and adherence to statutory safeguards. Whether perpetrated by cybercriminals or through misuse of authority, digital arrests violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
The judiciary has consistently emphasized due process, transparency, and accountability in matters of arrest and detention. However, the rapid evolution of technology demands proactive measures to prevent new forms of abuse. There is an urgent need for public awareness campaigns, clear advisories from law enforcement agencies, and stricter enforcement of cybercrime laws. Additionally, police personnel must be trained to understand and counter digital impersonation crimes effectively.
In conclusion, while technology has enhanced the efficiency of governance and law enforcement, its misuse in the form of digital arrests poses a serious threat to civil liberties. Upholding the rule of law in the digital age requires a firm commitment to constitutional values, robust legal safeguards, and informed citizenry.
