Author: Riya S. Rane, Hindi Vidya Prachar Samiti’s College of Law
To the Point
In 2022, Indian investigative authorities uncovered a sophisticated cyber-fraud scheme in which unidentified individuals allegedly impersonated a Supreme Court judge by misusing the name and perceived authority of Justice Arun Kumar Mishra. The impersonation was carried out through digital platforms, primarily WhatsApp, with the intent to intimidate, influence, or extract compliance from unsuspecting individuals. The case drew attention due to the unprecedented misuse of judicial identity, raising serious concerns about cybercrime, institutional trust, and the vulnerability of constitutional offices in the digital space.
Use of Legal Jargon
The alleged conduct constitutes cheating by personation, forgery of authority, criminal conspiracy, and electronic fraud, punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Indian Penal Code) and the Information Technology Act, 2000. Further, impersonation of a judge amounts to obstruction of justice and an indirect affront to the independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Constitution of India. Such acts also risk attracting liability under doctrines relating to contempt of court, even when the judiciary itself is the victim rather than the accused.
The Proof
The investigation reportedly relied on a combination of digital forensics and financial intelligence, including:
Analysis of WhatsApp communication records used to impersonate judicial authority
Tracking of call routing and IP-based communication, linking the operation to organised cyber networks
Examination of fabricated credentials and false representations claiming proximity to the Supreme Court
Identification of a fake legal consultancy façade, allegedly used to lend credibility to the scam
Crucially, no material suggested any participation or knowledge on the part of Justice Arun Kumar Mishra. The impersonation was entirely unauthorised, reinforcing the criminal nature of the offence.
Abstract
The impersonation of judicial authorities represents a novel and deeply troubling category of cybercrime. Unlike conventional online frauds that rely on technological deception, judicial impersonation exploits constitutional symbolism and public reverence for courts. The alleged 2022 scam demonstrates how digital tools can be weaponised to simulate judicial processes, blur the line between lawful authority and criminal coercion, and undermine procedural safeguards. This development calls for re-evaluation of existing cybercrime laws in light of emerging threats to institutional legitimacy.
Case Laws
1. Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (1996)
The Supreme Court emphasised that any act which erodes public confidence in the justice system strikes at the rule of law.
2. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
The Court recognised reputation and institutional credibility as integral to constitutional governance.
3. CBI v. Arvind Khanna (2019)
The misuse of judicial names and offices was treated as a serious matter warranting heightened judicial scrutiny.
4. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (Suo Motu Observations, 2024)
The Court expressed concern over digital impersonation scams and stressed the need to protect citizens from fabricated legal authority.
Conclusion
The alleged Arun Kumar Mishra impersonation scam marks a critical inflection point in India’s cybercrime landscape. By targeting the judiciary’s moral and constitutional authority, such frauds threaten not merely individual victims but the foundations of public trust. Existing criminal provisions, though applicable, were not designed with judicial identity theft in mind. Strengthening digital verification of judicial communication, enhancing cyber literacy, and recognising institutional impersonation as a distinct aggravated offence are necessary steps to safeguard the justice system in the digital age.
FAQS
Q1. Was Justice Arun Kumar Mishra involved in the scam?
No. There is no allegation or evidence of his involvement. His identity was allegedly misused without authorisation.
Q2. Does Indian law recognise “digital arrest”?
No. Indian criminal procedure does not recognise arrest, detention, or judicial directions communicated through informal digital platforms like WhatsApp.
Q3. Why is judicial impersonation treated seriously in law?
Because it undermines the rule of law, interferes with justice delivery, and exploits constitutional authority for criminal gain.
Q4. What legal remedies are available to victims?
Victims may approach cybercrime cells, file complaints under the IT Act and BNS, and seek judicial intervention for recovery and investigation.
Q5. How can such scams be prevented?
Through public awareness, secure judicial communication systems, and swift inter-agency coordination to dismantle organised
