Supreme Court Expresses Deep Concern Over Rising ವಂಚನೆ Cases

Supreme Court Questions Persistence of ವಂಚನೆ Scams

The Supreme Court has expressed profound astonishment over the continuous rise of cyber scams involving digital arrests, questioning why even educated individuals continue to fall victim to such tricks. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Jaymala Bagchi and V Mohana, took up the matter through suo motu proceedings to address the growing threat.

Court-appointed amicus curiae N.S. Nappinai highlighted that despite continuous preventive efforts, these incidents persist, pointing to a recent case where a woman lost 2.5 crore rupees. The bench remarked that in a democratic society, it remains baffling how anyone could believe they are under arrest merely through a phone call.

Mental Pressure and Bank Accountability in ವಂಚನೆ Cases

Legal representatives explained that the intense fear of arrest pushes victims into severe mental stress, comparing the psychological state to a form of hypnosis. While acknowledging that educated individuals fall prey to these tactics, the Supreme Court turned its focus toward financial institutions and their security mechanisms.

The bench raised concerns over why suspicious transactions are not halted immediately by security systems and questioned why stricter actions are not taken when bank officials themselves are found complicit in fraudulent activities. Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the court that banks are now better prepared compared to six months ago, and discussions have been held alongside the Reserve Bank of India, while the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre functions around the clock.

Proposed Measures to Tackle ವಂಚನೆ

Emphasizing that mere post-facto reporting is insufficient, the apex court suggested that financial institutions should bear strict liability and provide compensation to victims when security failures lead to losses. The bench underlined specific actions to curb financial frauds:

• Identifying suspicious transactions that deviate from a customer's standard behavioral pattern.
• Temporarily holding unusual transactions pending verification of their legitimacy.
• Automated notification to the relevant police station regarding flagged transactions.

The judiciary stressed that regulatory bodies like the RBI should establish robust guidelines to ensure account holders are protected and financial institutions maintain rigorous oversight.

Sources: Vijay Karnataka, Kannada Prabha Online, Prajavani.