Can CBI contain cybercrime effectively?

Investigating cybercrimes is very difficult. Even though the Supreme Court has directed the CBI to take a direct role in probing these offences, the agency is bogged down with many different investigations, especially politically sensitive cases. Though it has a grand name, the CBI is struggling because it does not have adequate staff. The central and state governments keep assigning high-profile cases to the CBI, but it’s regrettable that when officers within the agency are identified as being problematic, proper action is not taken.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes as a whiff of fresh air to the countless victims of cyber frauds. It is heartening that courts, when necessary, take responsible and appropriate decisions on key public issues — decisions that governments and police should be making — and even provide guidelines for their implementation. This is a wake-up call for those who uphold democracy and the separation of powers of their duty.

With “digital arrest scams” proliferating across the country, the Supreme Court’s directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for carrying out a comprehensive probe into such crimes and criminals — including seeking Interpol’s cooperation and tracing the origins — should be seen as a positive development in criminal justice prudence.

The Court also issued notices to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), directing it to use artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to investigate deep-rooted patterns of funds being moved through various banks in these crimes, so that proper inquiries can be conducted and perpetrators cannot escape. Referring to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Supreme Court ordered online intermediaries to cooperate with the CBI and asked them to collect and hand over data and information related to digital arrests to investigative agencies.

The court suggested that states and Union Territories not only set up coordination centers to thoroughly investigate cybercrime but also adopt plans to proactively prevent such offenses. The apex court also directed that the cybercrime coordination centres be linked with law enforcement agencies so that cybercrimes can be taken up for investigation.

A few days ago, under the leadership of Chief Justice Suryakant, the Supreme Court gave the CBI detailed guidelines on cybercrime—particularly digital arrests—sending a strong signal that tackling these crimes is being treated as a high priority. The court identified three types of cyber scams. One involves online “digital arrests” where perpetrators, often targeting retired officers, pose as investigative agencies and extort their hard earned money and cause severe psychological distress. Although media reports show these offences are occurring across the country, they have not stopped and gullible people continue to fall prey. The Supreme Court specifically entrusted the CBI with the responsibility of apprehending those who run such scams and carrying out investigations.

Scammers are running another kind of cybercrime: luring victims with attractive-sounding investments, getting them to deposit large sums, and defrauding them under the guise of “advance tax” or other pretexts. Another widespread cyber-scam involves flooding WhatsApp with ads for supposed part-time jobs, using YouTube to offer “free tasks” for small payments to gain trust, then convincing victims to pay large amounts for “premium” tasks. Many people have encountered these scams. Victims often suffer in silence, not reporting to the police, and some become so distressed that they end their lives. The central government informed the Supreme Court in a note that cybercriminals have already swindled nearly Rs 30 billion.

These fraudsters, posing as digital authorities, are extorting hard-earned money, especially from the elderly. While we celebrate technological progress, fraud enabled by that same progress is increasing day by day. Many victims are left humiliated and ashamed, unable even to confide in family or close ones, and some have been driven to suicide. Investigating cybercrimes is very difficult. Even though the Supreme Court has directed the CBI to take a direct role in probing these offences, the agency is bogged down with many different investigations, especially politically sensitive cases.

Though it has a grand name, the CBI is struggling because it does not have adequate staff. The central and state governments keep assigning high-profile cases to the CBI, but it’s regrettable that when officers within the agency are identified as being problematic, proper action is not taken. Although the CBI is supposed to be an independent agency, it has no control over the recruitment of its personnel, and the central government does not seem concerned about that.

The CBI takes officers on deputation from state police departments at various ranks. It appears the agency is even recruiting at the sub-inspector level for its work. But for higher-ranking positions, it inevitably relies on officers from state and other police departments. Whatever importance an offence may have, handing over cases to the CBI has become routine for both state and central governments. The days when a CBI inquiry was regarded with respect are gone. In the past, CBI cases more often led to convictions; even if investigations were slow, they were conducted methodically.

Ironically, in the US, even the government fears the FBI. Here, however, the widespread charge is that the CBI has become a puppet of the ruling party at the Centre. Previously, despite delays, CBI results were something to be proud of. Now delays have increased, and the perception is that convictions are rare or merely symbolic.

Only if the CBI is truly independent and restructured across fronts can we expect it to solve modern crimes effectively. It is only when training and skills are provided to the agency that the Supreme Court orders can be implemented meaningfully. In this modern age we need systems that plan measures to produce decisive, visible results—not token actions. The CBI must be at the forefront of that effort.

(The writer is a retired IPS officer, who has served as an Additional DGP of Andhra Pradesh)