On July 1, 2024, the Indian penal landscape underwent a historic transformation with the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, effectively repealing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. Drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860, the IPC was inherently designed to protect the state and maintain imperial control. Approaching its second operational anniversary in 2026, the BNS has proven to be a paradigm shift, transitioning the focus from mere state protection to a citizen-centric, justice-oriented framework.

The structural rationalisation of the BNS has reduced the total number of sections from 511 (under the IPC) to 358.This was achieved by consolidating scattered provisions, introducing 20 new offences, deleting 19 obsolete sections, and increasing the severity of punishments (imprisonment or fines) for over 116 offences.

Section-Wise Comparative Analysis: Key Offences Under BNS Vs IPC

Offences Against the Human Body and Women

The BNS fundamentally reorganises the statute by giving absolute primacy to offences against women and children (Chapter V) and offences affecting the human body (Chapter VI), moving them ahead of offences against the state.

• Murder and Mob Lynching:
  • IPC Framework: Murder was defined under Section 300 and punished under Section 302. Mob lynching was not a distinct offence; it was prosecuted under general provisions of murder and unlawful assembly.
  • BNS Framework (Section 103): Murder is now penalized under Section 103(1). Crucially, Section 103(2)statutorily recognizes and penalizes “Mob Lynching.” It criminalises murder committed by a group of five or more persons acting in concert on grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, or personal belief, prescribing punishment from a minimum of seven years to life imprisonment or death.
    +1
• Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means (The “False Promise to Marry” Clause):
  • IPC Framework: Prosecuted through an interpretative stretch of Section 415 (Cheating) and Section 90 (Consent under misconception of fact), leading to judicial inconsistency.
  • BNS Framework (Section 69): Introduces a specific statutory offence. Sexual intercourse established through “deceitful means”—explicitly defined to include false promises of employment, promotion, or marriage, or by suppressing one’s identity—is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.
• Gang Rape and the Age of Consent:
  • IPC Framework: Section 376D prescribed different penal thresholds for victims below 12 and 16 years.
  • BNS Framework (Section 70): The BNS harmonises the age of majority. Gang rape of a woman under 18 years of age attracts a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment (meaning the remainder of the convict’s natural life) or the death penalty.

Offences Against the State, Terrorism, and Organised Crime

The BNS modernises the law to address asymmetric warfare, syndicates, and modern financial crimes.

• Sedition vs. Acts Endangering Sovereignty:
  • IPC Framework (Section 124A): The highly litigated and colonial “Sedition” law penalized bringing hatred or contempt towards the Government established by law.
  • BNS Framework (Section 152): Section 124A is formally repealed. It is replaced by Section 152, which shifts the focus from “the Government” to “the State.” It penalizes acts—whether by spoken words, electronic communication, or financial means—that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, or excite secession or armed rebellion
    
• Organised Crime (New Addition):
  • IPC Framework: No central legislation existed. Investigating agencies relied on state-specific laws like MCOCA (Maharashtra) or GUJCOC (Gujarat).
  • BNS Framework (Sections 111 & 112): For the first time, “Organised Crime” and “Petty Organised Crime” are defined in central substantive law. It encompasses kidnapping, extortion, contract killing, land grabbing, and severe cybercrimes committed on behalf of a crime syndicate
    
• Terrorist Acts (New Addition):
  • IPC Framework: Prosecuted exclusively under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
  • BNS Framework (Section 113): Incorporates terrorism into the general penal law, defining it as acts intending to threaten the unity, integrity, and security of India, or to intimidate the general public.

Offences Against Property

• Snatching (New Addition):
  • IPC Framework: Snatching was historically prosecuted under Section 378 (Theft) or Section 390 (Robbery), often failing to meet the strict definitional thresholds of either, leading to acquittals.
  • BNS Framework (Section 304): Introduces “Snatching” as a distinct offence. Theft is legally classified as snatching if the offender suddenly, quickly, or forcibly seizes or secures property from a person, attracting imprisonment up to three years.
• Theft and Cheating (Re-numbered and Expanded):
  • The iconic Section 420 (Cheating) of the IPC is now Section 318 of the BNS.
  • Theft, formerly Section 378 IPC, is now Section 303 of the BNS. The definition is modernized to explicitly include the theft of digital and electronic records, vehicles, and items from places of worship.

Punishments and Penology (Section 4)

• Community Service: The BNS formally introduces “Community Service” as a legally sanctioned punitive measure under Section 4(f). It is prescribed for six petty offences (such as public intoxication, petty theft of property valued under ₹5,000 if returned, and defamation), emphasizing restorative justice over retributive incarceration.
• Causing Death by Negligence (Hit and Run):
  • Under Section 106(2) of the BNS, if an individual causes death by rash and negligent driving and escapes without reporting the incident to a police officer or Magistrate immediately, the punishment is escalated to imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine.

Omissions And Decriminalisation

To align with landmark Supreme Court judgments and modern constitutional morality, the BNS completely omits several IPC provisions:

1. Unnatural Offences (Section 377 IPC): Following the Navtej Singh Johar judgment, consensual same-sex relations are no longer criminalised. The BNS omits this section entirely.
2. Adultery (Section 497 IPC): Following the Joseph Shine judgment, adultery has been entirely dropped from the penal statute.
3. Attempt to Commit Suicide (Section 309 IPC): The blanket criminalisation of attempted suicide is removed. Instead, Section 226 of the BNS only penalises an attempt to commit suicide if it is done with the intent to compel or restrain a public servant from discharging their official duty.

Conclusion 

Disclaimer: This publication is intended strictly for educational and informational purposes in compliance with the rules of the Bar Council of India. It does not constitute legal advice, solicitation, or the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. For precise statutory interpretations or case-specific legal strategy, consultation with qualified legal counsel is advised.

The post Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 Vs. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: A Section-Wise Comparative Analysis Of Key Substantive Changes (Updated 2026) appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The digital age has ushered in unprecedented convenience alongside novel forms of criminal exploitation. Among the most insidious schemes to emerge in recent years is the “digital arrest” scam, a sophisticated form of cybercrime that preys upon citizens’ trust in law enforcement and judicial institutions. In October 2024, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of this alarming phenomenon after an elderly couple from Haryana lost over Rs. 1 crore to fraudsters impersonating officials from the Central Bureau of Investigation, Intelligence Bureau, and even the Supreme Court itself [1]. This judicial intervention has exposed critical regulatory gaps between the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while highlighting the judiciary’s expanding role in addressing emerging cyber threats.

Understanding Digital Arrest Scams

Digital arrest scams represent a calculated form of psychological manipulation where criminals impersonate law enforcement officials to coerce victims into transferring large sums of money. These fraudsters typically pose as officers from the police, CBI, Enforcement Directorate, or court officials, using sophisticated technological tools including forged documents, spoofed phone numbers, and video conferencing platforms. Victims are falsely accused of serious crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking, or violations of cybersecurity laws, and are told that arrest warrants have been issued against them. The criminals then keep victims on video calls for extended periods, creating a sense of urgency and fear while demanding immediate transfer of funds to supposedly secure or investigative accounts.

The scale of this criminal enterprise is staggering. According to government data presented in Parliament, Indians lost approximately Rs. 1,935.51 crore to digital arrest scams in 2024 alone, with 1,23,672 complaints registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal [2]. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre estimates that over 92,323 cases were reported between January and October 2024, with total losses exceeding Rs. 2,140 crore. These figures likely represent only a fraction of actual incidents, as many victims, particularly senior citizens, refrain from reporting due to shame or fear.

The Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Intervention

The Supreme Court’s decision to exercise suo motu jurisdiction in this matter stemmed from a letter written by Shashi Sachdeva and Harish Chand Sachdeva, a 73-year-old woman and her husband from Ambala, Haryana. Between September 3 and 16, 2024, the couple was systematically defrauded of their life savings by criminals who used forged Supreme Court orders, complete with fake signatures of judges, seals, and judicial stamps. The fraudsters went to extraordinary lengths to appear legitimate, displaying fabricated documents during video calls that included a purported freeze order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

On October 17, 2024, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took suo motu cognizance of the complaint, registering the matter as “In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents” [Suo Motu Writ (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025]. The Court expressed particular concern that the fraudsters had brazenly misused the Supreme Court’s name, authority, and judicial symbols, describing such acts as a “direct assault on judicial dignity.” Justice Kant observed that the forgery of judicial orders and misuse of the Supreme Court’s seal were matters of grave concern that eroded public trust in the justice system.

The Court issued notices to all states and Union Territories, directing them to submit details of all FIRs registered in connection with digital arrest cases. It also considered transferring the investigation of all such cases to the CBI for a unified probe into this nationwide criminal network. Senior advocate N.S. Nappinai was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in addressing this complex issue. The Attorney General R. Venkataramani urged the Court to allow the CBI to take over investigations, noting that money laundering gangs were operating from outside Indian territory, particularly from several parts of Asia.

The IT Act and BNS: Regulatory Framework and Gaps

The legal framework governing cybercrimes in India comprises primarily the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its amendments, alongside the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code. While these statutes provide mechanisms for prosecuting cybercrimes, significant gaps exist in addressing the sophisticated modus operandi of digital arrest scams.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 contains several provisions relevant to digital arrest frauds. Section 66D of the IT Act specifically addresses “punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.” This provision states that whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees [3]. The essence of this offence lies in impersonation combined with an intention to cheat using electronic means. It fills the legal gap left by traditional laws that primarily dealt with offline cheating and impersonation.

Section 66C of the IT Act addresses identity theft, providing that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh. These provisions work in conjunction to prosecute various aspects of digital fraud and impersonation.

However, the IT Act suffers from several limitations when applied to digital arrest scams. First, the prescribed punishment under Section 66D—a maximum of three years imprisonment and a fine of up to one lakh rupees—appears disproportionately lenient given the magnitude of losses suffered by victims, often running into crores of rupees. Second, Section 70B of the IT Act empowers CERT-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team) to coordinate cybersecurity incidents, but there is no procedural mandate for its engagement in criminal cases involving impersonation or extortion by digital means [4].

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 introduced significant reforms in the legal framework addressing fraud and deception. Section 318 of the BNS consolidates provisions related to cheating, replacing Sections 415, 417, 418, and 420 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. Section 318(1) defines cheating as occurring when someone, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Notably, the BNS increases the maximum punishment for general cheating from one year under IPC Section 417 to three years, reflecting a more stringent stance against such offences. Section 318(4) provides for enhanced punishment where cheating involves property—imprisonment up to seven years and also liable to fine. Section 319 of the BNS specifically addresses cheating by personation, providing that whoever cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

While these provisions strengthen the legal framework, a critical gap remains: the BNS provisions do not specifically mandate that cheating occur through electronic means, and the IT Act provisions carry significantly lighter sentences. This creates an enforcement dilemma where prosecutors must choose between the specialized cyber law with lighter penalties or general criminal provisions that may not adequately capture the technological sophistication of these crimes.

Procedural Safeguards: The Satender Kumar Antil Precedent

An important legal development relevant to digital arrest scams emerged from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51]. While this case did not directly address digital arrest frauds, the Court’s observations on the proper service of police notices have significant implications for combating such scams.

In a subsequent order dated January 21, 2025, building upon the Satender Kumar Antil precedent, the Supreme Court categorically held that notices under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) cannot be served through WhatsApp, email, SMS, or any other electronic mode [5]. The Court emphasized that such notices must be served in person as contemplated under the statutes. This ruling provides a critical procedural safeguard against attempts by fraudsters to legitimize their communications through digital platforms.

The Court directed all States and Union Territories to issue Standing Orders to their respective police machinery, instructing them to exclusively serve notices via the procedure specified by law. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted that the Standing Order dated January 26, 2024, issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana, which permitted police officers to serve notices through electronic modes, was in direct contravention of the law. The bench made it amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognized as valid service.

This procedural clarification undermines a key tactic used by digital arrest fraudsters, who often claim to be serving official notices or orders through messaging applications or video calls. By establishing that legitimate law enforcement agencies cannot use such methods for official communications, the Court has provided citizens with a clear criterion for identifying fraudulent contacts.

Government Response and Enforcement Mechanisms

The government has undertaken several initiatives to combat digital arrest scams, coordinated primarily through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) established by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As of December 2024, authorities have blocked over 1,700 Skype IDs and 59,000 WhatsApp accounts used for digital arrest scams. Additionally, more than 669,000 fraudulent SIM cards and 132,000 devices have been blocked from networks [6].

The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting System has helped save approximately Rs. 3,431 crore from fraudulent attempts. The government has also developed a system to block spoofed international calls that appear to originate from Indian numbers, addressing a common tactic used by scammers operating from overseas locations.

In October 2024, Prime Minister Narendra Modi specifically warned citizens about digital arrest scams in his Mann Ki Baat address, emphasizing that no genuine law enforcement agency conducts arrests over phone or video calls. This public awareness campaign represents recognition at the highest levels of government of the severity of this threat.

Several courts have issued strong rulings against digital arrest perpetrators. In July 2024, a West Bengal court described digital arrests as akin to “economic terrorism” while sentencing nine people to life imprisonment in a digital arrest scam case. Around the same time, a Lucknow court in Uttar Pradesh convicted and sentenced a man to multiple jail terms up to seven years for impersonating a CBI officer and duping a doctor of Rs. 85 lakh [7].

International Cooperation and the UN Cybercrime Convention

The Supreme Court has also drawn attention to the need for international cooperation in combating digital arrest scams. During hearings, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Solicitor General about India’s status regarding the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, emphasizing its importance in addressing rising online frauds.

The UN Convention against Cybercrime was adopted by the General Assembly on December 24, 2024, and opened for signature on October 25, 2025, in Hanoi, Vietnam [8]. The Convention represents the first comprehensive global treaty on cybercrime, providing states with measures to prevent and combat such crimes while strengthening international cooperation in sharing electronic evidence for serious crimes. It will enter into force 90 days after the 40th state deposits its ratification.

As of early 2026, India has not yet signed the UN Convention, reportedly due to certain reservations. However, the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the need for global cooperation highlights that without international frameworks enabling cross-border evidence sharing, investigating and prosecuting digital arrest scams becomes significantly more challenging, given that many criminal operations are based in Southeast Asian countries beyond India’s direct jurisdiction.

Institutional Challenges and Social Vulnerability

The prevalence of digital arrest scams reveals deeper structural issues within India’s cybersecurity infrastructure and legal literacy. Cyber security experts note that the success of these scams stems not merely from careless victims but from sophisticated psychological manipulation that exploits citizens’ fear of authority and lack of familiarity with proper legal procedures.

Most victims are senior citizens or individuals unfamiliar with digital platforms and law enforcement protocols. Cyber psychologist Nirali Bhatia explains that Indians fall prey to digital arrests because scams are designed to manipulate emotionally and psychologically, hijacking rational thinking. The scammers exploit authority bias and fear, creating scenarios where victims feel they must comply immediately to avoid serious legal consequences.

Perpetrators often operate from “scam hubs” abroad, using mule bank accounts and exploiting telecom loopholes to evade detection. They obtain victim profiles from data breaches—instances such as the Dominos and BigBasket data leaks provided wealth of information including personal details and phone numbers that scammers use to trap people in targeted, sophisticated manner.

The National Crime Records Bureau does not separately track digital arrests, making it challenging to obtain precise figures and assess the true magnitude of the problem. This lack of specific data hampers the development of targeted interventions and preventive measures.

Recommendations and the Path Forward

The Supreme Court’s recent order directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to draft a unified Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, banks, and the Department of Telecommunications represents a positive step toward coordinated action [9]. The Court described digital arrest scams as nothing short of “robbery or dacoity” and emphasized that fraudsters typically impersonate law enforcement or government officials to intimidate victims through audio or video calls, virtually holding them hostage while coercing money transfers.

Several measures are essential to address this menace effectively. First, legislative reform is needed to harmonize the IT Act and BNS provisions, creating specific offences for digital impersonation of law enforcement and judicial officials with enhanced penalties commensurate with the harm caused. The current three-year maximum sentence under Section 66D of the IT Act is inadequate for crimes that devastate victims financially and psychologically.

Second, mandatory verification protocols should be established for all official communications from law enforcement and judicial institutions. Citizens must be educated that legitimate agencies never demand immediate payment through phone calls or video conferences, never threaten immediate arrest without following due process, and never ask individuals to transfer funds to personal or unverified accounts.

Third, financial institutions need stronger real-time monitoring systems to flag and prevent suspicious transactions, particularly large transfers to newly opened accounts or accounts with patterns consistent with fraud. The banking sector must work closely with law enforcement to establish rapid response mechanisms when potential scam transactions are identified.

Fourth, international cooperation frameworks must be strengthened. Given that many digital arrest operations are based overseas, bilateral agreements enabling swift sharing of evidence and extradition of perpetrators are crucial. India’s consideration of the UN Cybercrime Convention should be expedited with appropriate safeguards to protect fundamental rights while enabling effective cross-border law enforcement cooperation.

Fifth, public education campaigns targeting vulnerable populations, particularly senior citizens, must be expanded. These should include simple, actionable information on how to verify the authenticity of official communications and what to do when contacted by someone claiming to be from law enforcement or judicial authorities.

Conclusion

Digital arrest scams represent a pernicious form of cybercrime that exploits citizens’ trust in institutions while causing devastating financial and psychological harm. The Supreme Court’s suo motu intervention demonstrates the judiciary’s vital role in addressing emerging threats to public welfare and institutional integrity. However, judicial activism alone cannot solve this problem.

The legal framework comprising the IT Act and BNS contains relevant provisions but suffers from inadequate penalties, lack of coordination, and insufficient procedural safeguards tailored to the digital context. The Satender Kumar Antil precedent provides an important procedural bulwark by clarifying that legitimate notices cannot be served electronically, but broader reforms are needed.

Effective response requires coordinated action across multiple fronts: legislative reform to close regulatory gaps and enhance penalties, technological solutions including better banking security and telecom fraud prevention, international cooperation to pursue cross-border criminal networks, and sustained public education to empower citizens to recognize and report fraud attempts.

The Supreme Court’s characterization of digital arrest scams as attacks on judicial dignity is apt—when criminals co-opt the symbols and authority of justice itself, they undermine the very foundations of the rule of law. Addressing this menace is thus not merely about protecting individual victims but about preserving public trust in the institutions that sustain democratic governance. As India continues its digital transformation, ensuring that this digital future is secure, trustworthy, and protective of citizens’ rights and property must remain a paramount concern for all branches of government and civil society.

References

[1] “Digital Arrest Scam: Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance,” Deccan Herald, October 17, 2024. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/digital-arrest-scam-supreme-court-takes-suo-motu-cognizance-issues-notice-to-centre-cbi-3767349 

[2] “Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Digital Arrest Scams,” Indian Masterminds, October 17, 2024. https://indianmasterminds.com/news/supreme-court-digital-arrest-scams-suo-motu-cognisance-centre-cbi-response-153294/ 

[3] “Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Explained,” ApniLaw, October 7, 2024. https://www.apnilaw.com/legal-articles/acts/section-66d-of-the-information-technology-act-2000-explained-with-online-fraud-and-personation-cases/ 

[4] “SCAORA Seeks Intervention In Suo Motu Case Over Digital Arrest Scams,” Live Law, November 10, 2024. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-scaora-intervention-digital-arrest-scams-suo-motu-case-309435 

[5] “Upholding Procedural Compliance: Supreme Court Reaffirms Electronic Service of Notices,” Citizens for Justice and Peace, February 3, 2025. https://cjp.org.in/upholding-procedural-compliance-supreme-court-reaffirms-electronic-service-of-notices-under-section-41a-crpc-section-35-bnss-as-invalid/ 

[6] “Supreme Court Warns on Digital Arrest Scams, Urges Action on UN Cybercrime Treaty,” Vajiram & Ravi, November 18, 2024. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/supreme-court-warns-on-digital-arrest-scams-urges-action-on-un-cybercrime-treaty/ 

[7] “The Digital Arrest Scam That Made India’s Supreme Court Take Note,” BOOM Live, October 30, 2024. https://www.boomlive.in/law/supreme-court-suo-motu-notice-of-digital-scams-in-india-29860 

[8] “United Nations Convention against Cybercrime,” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/cybercrime/convention/home.html 

[9] “Supreme Court Orders Unified SOP to Tackle Digital Arrest Scams,” The Federal, February 2026. https://thefederal.com/category/news/supreme-court-orders-unified-sop-to-tackle-digital-arrest-scams-229157 

The post Digital Arrest Scams and the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Jurisdiction: Filling a Gap Between the IT Act and BNS appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.