List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, in the suo motu proceedings concerning digital arrest scams, issued a series of directions aimed at strengthening the prevention, investigation, and redressal mechanisms relating to this emerging category of cyber fraud. 

• The Bench passed these directions after hearing Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate NS Nappinai, directing the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to adopt a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for banks, operationalise grievance redressal and money restoration mechanisms, and asking an inter-departmental committee to examine a framework for shared liability and victim compensation. 

What was the Background of the Digital Arrest Scams Proceedings? 

• The Supreme Court has been monitoring the issue of "digital arrest" scams through ongoing suo motu proceedings in view of the rising incidence of such cyber-enabled financial frauds across the country. 
• The Court took note of a status report filed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which recorded that restoration of defrauded money had been completed in 36,290 cases involving an aggregate amount of ₹18.05 crore, with the participation of 57 banks and all States and Union Territories. 
• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had also registered digital arrest cases and connected matters, identified victims through transactions in 67 first-layer bank accounts, and conducted searches at 93 locations across 16 States. 
• An inter-departmental committee had separately requested the CBI to examine the feasibility of lowering the existing monetary threshold for taking over cyber fraud investigations, and to consider aggregating cases involving the same organised network where the cumulative fraud exceeds the prescribed threshold. 
• While acknowledging this progress, the Bench observed that the mechanisms already in place required wider adoption, faster disposal, and continued follow-up, prompting the Court to issue further structural directions. 

What were the Court's Directions? 

• On RBI's Standard Operating Procedure: The Court directed the RBI to formally adopt and circulate, within four weeks, an SOP prescribing the action to be taken by banks for placing temporary debit holds on accounts linked to cyber-enabled financial fraud. The SOP must incorporate a grievance redressal mechanism, a money restoration module, and measures for public awareness regarding both. The Court further directed the Registrars General of all High Courts to bring this grievance redressal mechanism to the notice of courts and adjudicating authorities dealing with freezing of bank accounts, encouraging aggrieved persons to first avail themselves of this mechanism. 
• On Directions to States and Union Territories: The Court directed all States and Union Territories to notify and operationalise State Cyber Crime Coordination Centres within four weeks, and to adopt the e-Zero FIR mechanism in consultation with the I4C, with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) extending necessary assistance. Authorities were also directed to ensure expeditious disposal of matters relating to freezing of bank accounts arising from cyber-enabled financial frauds. 
• On Public Awareness Measures: The inter-departmental committee was directed to issue advisories to all States, Union Territories, Ministries, and government departments to undertake extensive public awareness programmes covering prevention of cyber crime and digital arrest scams, the grievance redressal and money restoration modules, and the MHA's SOP concerning custody and restoration of defrauded money. The committee was also directed to coordinate with banks on measures to prevent digital arrest scams, facilitate recovery of defrauded money, assist investigations, and ensure compliance with applicable laws. 
• On the Victim Compensation Framework: Recognising the need to strengthen victim protection, the Court directed the inter-departmental committee to examine a proposal for introducing a shared liability and victim compensation framework for victims of digital arrest scams. Legal Services Committees across the country were directed to conduct public awareness initiatives on prevention of digital arrest scams, cyber crime awareness, cyber security, and available recovery mechanisms. 
• On CBI Investigation Threshold: The Court directed the inter-departmental committee to examine the proposal for reducing the existing monetary threshold for CBI investigation of cyber fraud cases, and to consider whether cases involving the same organised network could be aggregated to satisfy the prescribed threshold for CBI intervention. 
• On Telecom-Based Preventive Measures: The Bench directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and the I4C to examine a proposal for introducing time-based restrictions on telecom services for audio and video calls, and to place a brief note before the Court on the proposal's feasibility, utility, and possible alternatives. 
• The matter is listed for further consideration in September. 

What are Digital Arrest Scams? 

About:  

• A cybercrime where scammers impersonate law enforcement/regulatory officials (RBI, CBI, ED) to falsely accuse victims of crimes and extort money or personal data.  
• Starts with a routine-seeming call (parcel/KYC), escalates to serious crime allegations. Important note: "digital arrest" has no legal recognition under Indian law. 

Why it succeeds: 

• Exploits fear, urgency, and authority impersonation 
• Weak personal cybersecurity 
• Deepfakes, voice cloning, number spoofing 
• Untraceable payment methods and cross-border networks 
• Low awareness/reporting due to stigma 

Modus operandi (6 stages): 

• Initial contact (fake official communication) 
• Creating panic (false crime accusations) 
• Digital verification (fake documents/video calls) 
• Isolation and coercion (victim cut off from family/lawyers, kept in "digital custody") 
• Payment demand (UPI/crypto/gift cards) 
• Disappearance and money laundering (funds routed through mule accounts, offshore) 

Government countermeasures: 

• I4C blocked 1,700+ Skype IDs, 59,000+ WhatsApp accounts 
• Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting System saved ₹3,431 crore across 9.94 lakh complaints 
• 6,69,000+ SIM cards, 1,32,000+ IMEIs blocked 
• CyTrain platform trained 98,000+ police officers 
• Awareness via Cyber Dost, SancharSathi 

Legal Provisions Applicable: 

Procedural safeguard:  

• Under BNSS S.63, electronic summons is valid only if encrypted, court-sealed, and digitally signed — no arrest notice can be served via WhatsApp or informal channels, a position the Supreme Court has affirmed. 

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan, in Hurba Petro and Others v. Union of India and Others (2026), held that an order extending the period of investigation from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) is an interlocutory order and is not appealable under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act). 

• The Court held that such an order merely postpones the accused's right to seek default bail and does not finally determine any substantive rights, and accordingly directed that the appeal be treated as a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 

What was the Background of Hurba Petro and Others v. Union of India and Others (2026) Case? 

• An FIR was registered by the NIA on 13th March against six appellants, all Ukrainian nationals, who were arrested from airports in Delhi and Lucknow. 
• According to the prosecution, the appellants were allegedly conspiring with local ethnic armed groups in India to compromise national security and carry out attacks in Myanmar. 
• The appellants were remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody. 
• The NIA moved an application before the Special NIA Court seeking extension of the investigation period from 90 days to 180 days under Section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA, on the ground that the probe was still underway and several aspects of the alleged conspiracy remained to be investigated. 
• The Special NIA Court allowed the extension application, resulting in continuation of the appellants' judicial custody beyond the initial 90-day period. 
• The appellants contended that the impugned order defeated their statutory right to seek default bail after expiry of 90 days, and was therefore appealable. 
• The NIA raised a preliminary objection that the extension order was merely interlocutory and no appeal lay against it under Section 21 of the NIA Act. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Nature of an Extension Order: The Court held that an order granting further extension would not even be an intermediate order, as it does not carry the trappings of irretrievable consequences. Such orders merely reflect the Trial Court's exercise of discretion to grant extension, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, and do not reject the right to default bail but only postpone its availment. 
• On the Right to Default Bail: The Court observed that grant of extension has a clear consequence for the accused — namely, that at the expiry of 90 days the accused would not be entitled to default bail. However, it clarified that this right to default bail is a statutory right under Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, and not an absolute right; it is a consequence that may be deferred by the Trial Court upon being satisfied as to the progress of investigation and the specific reasons justifying continued detention. 
• On Interlocutory Character and Finality: The Court held that when extension is granted, the availment of default bail stands postponed from the 91st day to the 181st day, and the right itself is not extinguished. It held that such an order is therefore merely interlocutory and does not attach finality to it, since the Trial Court's assessment at that stage is based only on the Public Prosecutor's report and is confined to the limited purpose of granting extension. 
• On Legislative Intent: The Court held that the intention of the legislature, considering the seriousness of allegations involved in offences under the UAPA and the complexity of such investigations, was not to make an extension order appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. 
• Distinguishing State v. Anamul Ansari: The Court distinguished its earlier decision in State v. Anamul Ansari, which had held that an order refusing extension of time for investigation is appealable, since such refusal results in the accused becoming entitled to default bail. The Court noted that the correctness of Anamul Ansari is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and is pending consideration. 
• On the Available Remedy: Reiterating the position taken in Syed Shahid Yousuf, the Court held that an order granting extension of time for investigation would only be amenable to judicial review under Section 482 of the CrPC or Section 528 of the BNSS, and accordingly directed the appeal to be renumbered as a petition under the appropriate provision and placed before the roster bench.

What is the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967? 

About:  

• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations, dealing with terrorist activities, and related matters.  
• Originally, "unlawful activities" referred to actions supporting secession or questioning India's sovereignty and territorial integrity.  
• The Act empowers the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate and prosecute cases nationwide. 

Key Amendments: 

The UAPA underwent multiple amendments expanding its scope: 

• 2004 Amendment: Added "terrorist act" to the list of offences beyond unlawful activities related to secession. 
• 2008 Amendment: Expanded provisions related to terrorist financing. 
• 2012 Amendment: Addressed cyber-terrorism and property seizure mechanisms. 
• 2019 Amendment: Empowered the government to designate individuals as terrorists (previously only organizations could be designated). 

Major Provisions: 

• Government Powers: The central government has complete authority to declare any activity unlawful by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette. 
• Investigation Timeline: The investigating agency can file a chargesheet within a maximum of 180 days after arrests, with extensions possible after intimating the court. 
• Extraterritorial Application: Both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged, applicable even if the crime is committed outside India. 
• Penalties: The Act provides for death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments. 
• Bail Restrictions: Section 43D(5) creates stringent bail conditions, requiring courts to believe that accusations are prima facie not true before granting bail—reversing the usual presumption in favor of bail. 

Related Judgments on UAPA and Bail: 

• Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011): The Supreme Court ruled that mere membership of a banned organisation will not incriminate a person unless they resort to violence, incite violence, or create disorder. However, in 2023, the Court reversed this position, ruling that membership alone can be considered an offense even without overt violence. 
• People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2004): The Court held that if human rights are violated in combating terrorism, it will be self-defeating. The judgment emphasized that a former police officer is not suitable for appointment to the National Human Rights Commission. 
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): The Court affirmed that protests against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate, provided they remain peaceful and non-violent. 
• Hussain and Anr. v. Union of India (2017): The Court emphasized expediting bail applications, reiterating that bail should be the standard and imprisonment the exception. 
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019): The Supreme Court held that courts should not delve deeply into evidence but rather trust the state's case as presented when deciding UAPA bail applications—a precedent heavily relied upon in denying bail to Khalid and others.