Last Updated:
Supreme Court calls the siphoning of over Rs 54,000 crore through digital frauds nothing short of “robbery or dacoity”.
The Supreme Court asked the Reserve Bank of India, the Department of Telecommunications and other agencies to jointly work out a framework for compensating victims of digital arrest scams.
The intervention by the Supreme Court on digital banking fraud cases could mark a turning point for crores of Indians who have so far been left to fend for themselves against cyber criminals. The apex court called the siphoning of over Rs 54,000 crore through digital frauds nothing short of “robbery or dacoity”.
The top court has sent a strong message: Banks can no longer remain passive conduits when fraud takes place. For depositors, pensioners and first-time digital users, this shift matters deeply.
Here’s why the ruling works in your favour.
First, cyber fraud becomes a serious criminal offence requiring urgent action
Rahul Mehta, partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys said the Supreme Court’s strong characterisation of large-scale digital fraud as ‘robbery or dacoity’ is a landmark development for consumers, as it elevates cyber fraud from a routine financial dispute to a serious criminal offence requiring urgent and coordinated state action.
Second, the burden of vigilance shifts from customers to banks
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria observed that banks have a fiduciary responsibility to alert customers when unusual, large-scale transactions occur in accounts typically used for sending or receiving small amounts.
It said that when a retiree, who withdraws amounts in the range of Rs 10,000 or Rs 20,000, suddenly withdraws huge amounts, then the bank should issue an alert.
Third, suspicious transactions may now be frozen before money vanishes
The court endorsed temporary debit holds and proactive intervention by banks.
Rahul Sundaram, partner at IndiaLaw LLP, said, “The Supreme Court’s intervention should protect the common person by forcing banks to freeze suspicious transactions before funds vanish, ensuring faster recovery of stolen money through coordinated government action, and shifting accountability to financial institutions rather than leaving victims to fight alone against cyber criminals.”
This is critical because once money moves across mule accounts, recovery becomes difficult.
Fourth, banks can no longer escape accountability by blaming customers
The bench questioned whether massive frauds were the result of negligence or collusion by bank officials. This judicial scrutiny raises the cost of inaction for banks and weakens the defence that fraud is purely a “customer error”.
Fifth, compensation for victims is now firmly on the agenda
The court asked the Reserve Bank of India, the Department of Telecommunications and other agencies to jointly work out a framework for compensating victims of digital arrest scams. Importantly, it called for a “pragmatic and liberal approach”, a sharp departure from the rigid stance victims usually face.
Sixth, AI-based fraud detection is no longer optional
The court questioned why banks are not using artificial intelligence to flag abnormal behaviour, especially in vulnerable accounts such as those of retirees. This pushes the system towards real-time alerts rather than post-fraud paperwork.
Seventh, coordinated action replaces fragmented responses
The court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to formally adopt the RBI’s Standard Operating Procedure and implement it nationwide. It also asked the Central Bureau of Investigation to pursue identified digital arrest cases after sanctions from Delhi and Gujarat governments. This signals a unified, pan-India approach instead of scattered state-level action.
Eighth, the scale of the problem is finally acknowledged at the highest level
By noting that cyber fraud losses exceed the budgets of several small states, the court has reframed digital fraud as a systemic economic threat, not just individual misfortune. As Sundaram noted, the observations clearly show that existing safeguards are “grossly insufficient”, calling for a fundamental rethink and even a cross-ministerial task force to combat what he describes as an escalating cyber financial crime epidemic.
Taken together, the Supreme Court’s directions mark a shift from a customer-beware regime to an institution-accountable framework. If implemented effectively, this could fundamentally change how digital frauds are prevented, detected and compensated — finally giving ordinary bank customers the protection they were promised in the digital age.
Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google.
February 10, 2026, 15:37 IST
Read More
