CURRENT AFFAIRS | APRIL 1, 2026
CLAT GK + CYBER LAW & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
India’s largest “digital arrest” fraud — where a retired banker lost ₹22.92 crore over six weeks — has been transferred from Delhi Police to the CBI, marking a significant escalation in India’s fight against organised cyber crime. The case, involving fraudsters impersonating Mumbai Police, the Enforcement Directorate, and CBI officers via video calls, exposes the terrifying intersection of technology, impersonation, and financial fraud at an unprecedented scale.
IT Act 2000 — Section 66D: Cheating by personation using a computer resource; punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment and fine. This is the primary provision invoked in digital arrest cases.
IPC Section 419 & 420 / BNS Section 318(4): Section 419 (cheating by personation) and 420 (inducing delivery of property) apply. Under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replacing IPC from July 2024, Section 318(4) now governs personation-based cheating.
DSPE Act 1946: The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 is the parent legislation governing the CBI, conferring jurisdiction over cases transferred from State Police under Entry 2, List I (Union List), Schedule VII of the Constitution.
Article 246 + Entry 2, List I: The constitutional basis allowing Parliament to legislate on CBI jurisdiction and transfer cases from state police to central agencies.
Retired SBI banker Naresh Malhotra of South Delhi’s Gulmohar Park was targeted on August 1, 2025. Callers impersonating telecom officials claimed his Aadhaar had been misused for terror funding. This was followed by video calls from persons posing as Mumbai Police, ED, and CBI officers who placed him under a “digital arrest” — a psychological hold lasting 46 days. During this period, Malhotra transferred ₹22.92 crore through 21 transactions, liquidating mutual funds, SIPs and fixed deposits.
The fraud operated through two distinct groups: one group made the actual calls using encrypted SIM boxes (devices routing multiple fraudulently activated SIM cards over internet calls), while a second group handled the financial transfers — laundering the money through 4,236 transactions across seven banking layers. The main operator of both chains was traced to Connaught Place, Delhi. After getting ₹12.11 crore frozen across multiple bank accounts, Delhi Police’s IFSO unit transferred the case to the CBI for deeper jurisdictional investigation given the money’s inter-state and international routing.
The Supreme Court has taken cognisance, with a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issuing notices to the Union of India, CBI, RBI, and seven banks — Kotak Mahindra, HDFC, Axis, ICICI, IndusInd, City Union, and Yes Bank — on the question of bank liability for failing to flag suspicious transactions. PM Modi had previously warned citizens about digital arrest scams in his Mann Ki Baat address, noting that no government agency ever arrests anyone via video call.
This case is a goldmine for CLAT 2027 GK passages. Expect comprehension passages built around:
- IT Act Section 66D vs IPC 419/420 — distinguishing provisions
- Constitutional basis for CBI jurisdiction (Art. 246, Entry 2 List I, DSPE Act 1946)
- Bank liability and RBI’s role in detecting suspicious transactions
- The transition from IPC to BNS — which sections replace which
- Supreme Court suo motu jurisdiction vs writ petition under Art. 32
Likely question type: “Under which provision can a case be transferred from State Police to CBI? / Which IT Act section covers cyber impersonation?”
| Fact | Detail |
| Amount Defrauded | ₹22.92 crore (21 transactions over 6 weeks) |
| Victim | Naresh Malhotra, retired SBI banker, South Delhi |
| Investigating Agency | CBI (transferred from Delhi Police IFSO unit) |
| Key Legislation | IT Act S.66D, BNS S.318(4), DSPE Act 1946 |
| Amount Frozen | ₹12.11 crore (across 7 bank accounts) |
Mnemonic — “DID CBI CATCH?”
- DSPE Act 1946 → CBI’s parent act
- IT Act S.66D → Cyber impersonation
- Digital arrest → No real legal basis (PM Modi confirmed)
- CBI jurisdiction → Art. 246 + Entry 2, List I
- BNS S.318(4) → Replaces IPC S.419
- IPC 420 → Cheating and property delivery
Key Rule: No government agency in India ever arrests anyone via video call. Any such “digital arrest” is always a fraud.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
