MHA: Over 21,900 digital-arrest complaints in Jan-Aug 2026

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) have told the Supreme Court that more than 21,900 digital-arrest complaints involving over Rs 647 crore were registered between 1 January and 31 August 2026, Hindustan Times reported. Their status report, filed on 7 October, describes measures to prevent the fraud, investigate complaints and return money to victims.

The filing is the latest update in In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents, a proceeding the Supreme Court initiated on its own motion. The court’s available record confirms that the matter was heard on 4 August 2026 by the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. SCC Times identifies the Chief Justice on that bench as Surya Kant.

The complaint figures and details of the October filing are drawn from Hindustan Times’ account; the filing itself was not available for this report. They are submissions by the authorities, not findings by the court on individual complaints.

According to Hindustan Times, the authorities reported 1,23,672 complaints involving Rs 1,935 crore during the full calendar year 2024 and 58,239 complaints involving Rs 1,211 crore during 2025. The latest figures cover eight months, so they are not a like-for-like annual comparison.

A fraud built around false official authority

I4C’s advisory dated 6 March 2025 states that Indian law recognises no concept of “digital arrest”. It describes a scam in which callers impersonate police officers, investigators or other government representatives, accuse people of involvement in criminal activity and demand money.

The advisory explains that victims may be forced to remain on video calls while scammers use imitation police-station settings to reinforce their false identity. The supposed confinement is part of the deception, not a lawful arrest procedure.

The Supreme Court took up the matter on 17 October 2025 after receiving a complaint from a senior citizen couple allegedly cheated through such a scheme, according to MediaNama. Its report said the alleged scammers posed as CBI, ED and judicial officials and displayed forged Supreme Court documents to induce transfers.

That complaint developed into a wider examination of the institutional response. SCC Times reported that the court’s interim directions addressed investigations, bank accounts used to move fraud proceeds, misuse of telecom services, grievance handling and the return of recovered money.

Reporting on the 4 August hearing, SCC Times said the court regarded the decline in reported complaints as encouraging but held that continuing monitoring remained necessary. These were interim directions in an ongoing proceeding, not a final disposal of the case.

Grievance handling and the return of money

The MHA’s Grievance Redressal Portal became fully operational nationwide in April 2026 and covered 109 banks and 1.28 lakh branches as of 30 September, according to the status report described by Hindustan Times.

The ministry reported that law-enforcement agencies had acted on 60,638 of the portal’s 93,041 grievances relating to cybercrime and cyber fraud, according to Hindustan Times. Those figures concern a broader category than digital-arrest complaints. The description “acted upon” also does not establish that every grievance resulted in a completed refund.

SCC Times reported that the Supreme Court had directed states, Union territories and law-enforcement agencies to operationalise the grievance and money-restoration mechanisms. High Court registrars general were asked to draw the grievance mechanism to the attention of courts and authorities handling the freezing of bank accounts in cyber-fraud cases.

According to SCC Times, the court made clear that using that mechanism would not bar constitutional, statutory or other legal remedies. It also sought state-wise and bank-wise reporting that distinguished grievances, restoration orders and completed repayments.

That distinction matters in reading the latest figures. Hindustan Times reported that the Money Restoration Portal had received more than six lakh refund or restoration requests and that law-enforcement agencies had issued 4.69 lakh orders. Its account cited Rs 332.7 crore in restoration, of which Rs 112.96 crore had been returned by banks to victims.

On coordination, the October report said all states except Jharkhand had established State Cybercrime Coordination Centres, Hindustan Times reported. It also identified Himachal Pradesh, Lakshadweep, Manipur and Nagaland as yet to operationalise the online zero-FIR mechanism for cybercrime complaints.

Banking safeguards and limits on long calls

Banking measures remain another part of the proceedings. SCC Times reported that, on 4 August, the Supreme Court directed the Reserve Bank of India to formally adopt and circulate a standard operating procedure within four weeks for temporary restrictions on debits from accounts linked to suspected money-mule activity and cyber-enabled fraud.

Such restrictions concern money leaving an account. The purpose of the proposed procedure, as described in SCC Times’ report, is to prescribe how banks should impose those temporary holds.

The October status report described further implementation work. According to Hindustan Times, the RBI procedure requires integration with the grievance and money-restoration portals. The report gave December 2026 as a tentative operationalisation timeline, conditional on technical development, integration, testing and implementation.

SCC Times also reported an August direction to implement a delayed-transaction or lagged-credit safeguard. Hindustan Times’ account of the October filing, however, describes that measure as still being examined by the RBI, including its costs and benefits.

The RBI told I4C and the inter-departmental committee examining digital-arrest fraud that some banks supported the proposal, while others raised concerns about customer inconvenience and whether evolving fraud methods would reduce its effectiveness, according to Hindustan Times. The later account therefore does not establish that a uniform delayed-transaction safeguard is already operating.

The court has also considered whether technology could interrupt the prolonged calls used to control victims. SCC Times reported that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecommunications and I4C were directed to examine a time-based “kill switch”, meaning an automatic disconnection mechanism, with attention to feasibility, safeguards and alternatives.

Hindustan Times reported that WhatsApp and Telegram raised practical concerns during discussions on such a facility. The same account said an inter-departmental committee was preparing a proposal on victim compensation and shared liability, and that the Supreme Court would next take up the matter on 29 October.