Karnataka High Court | Orders SIT Probe in Cybercrime Case | Directs State to Operationalise Cyber Command Centre to Tackle Rising Threats
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, directed that a Special Investigation Team be constituted to conduct a fresh probe into a pending criminal matter involving allegations of cyber fraud. The Court further ordered the State Government to operationalise a Cyber Command Centre, conceived as a dedicated mechanism for investigating offences under the Information Technology Act and related laws. Observing that existing structures were inadequate to handle the scale of cybercrime, the Court held that specialised institutions were imperative for safeguarding citizens from digital frauds. It mandated continuity of leadership within the new body, integration of helpline mechanisms with police records, and transparency in operations.
The proceedings before the High Court arose from a petition concerning allegations of large-scale cyber fraud that had been reported within the State. The petition highlighted concerns about the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police and sought judicial intervention to ensure a more effective and specialised probe. The matter, involving offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, together with related penal provisions, was presented as a case requiring systemic and structural solutions in addition to the specific investigative relief sought.
The petitioners contended that cybercrime complaints were not being investigated with the rigour warranted by the complexity of the offences. Evidence indicated that cases involving digital frauds, online scams, and unauthorised financial transactions were rising exponentially, yet the institutional mechanisms available were fragmented. While Cyber Economic and Narcotics (CEN) police stations had been notified in various jurisdictions, the complaints continued to be dispersed across general police stations as well, leading to inconsistencies in investigation and prosecution.
Statistical data placed before the Court revealed that in 2021, a total of 8,396 cases under the Information Technology Act had been reported, while by 2023 the figure had climbed to 15,543 in CEN police stations alone, alongside 6,710 cases in other police stations. By 2025, the cases had risen to more than 30,000, a figure described as alarming and demonstrative of the pace of cybercrime growth. The petitioners argued that absent dedicated infrastructure, justice for victims of cyber fraud would remain elusive.
The State Government, represented through its counsel, submitted that steps had already been initiated to strengthen cybercrime investigation, including proposals to create a dedicated Cyber Command Centre. The Government had issued notifications detailing the proposed structure and integration of cybercrime police stations, laboratories, and investigative wings into a centralised system. The Court noted these submissions but also observed that mere administrative orders without functional enforcement would not suffice.
An amicus curiae, Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, assisted the Court by placing on record developments within the State administration, including a Government Order dated 2 September 2025 which set out the framework for the establishment of a Cyber Command Centre. This was presented as a step towards implementing judicial directions issued in April and May 2025, where the Court had already expressed the imperative need for a specialised body to handle digital fraud cases.
The Court stated: “The State thus must recognize the existential threat and evolve, failing which, justice to those victims will become a mirage. It is again in public domain that the State of Karnataka recognizing the huge problem of cyber crime, has in fact come up with a novel idea of a cyber command centre, to be headed by an officer of the rank of the Director General of Police.”
The Bench further remarked: “If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative. Such cyber command centres should be made meaningfully functional by appropriate officers manning such cyber command centres.”
The Court observed: “The aforesaid direction has become imperative for the reasons indicated hereinabove. Such Investigating Agency will be a pioneer in the new age crime by a new age investigative branch.”
On the Government Orders placed on record, the Court noted: “The said Government Order establishes the CCC, but mere establishment would not be enough. If it remains inert, it would only become a paper implementation, in the face of growing menace of cyber crimes. This CCC should not be a mere edifice of bureaucracy, but a paradigm shift, a beacon heralding a new dawn in the fight against cyber crime.”
Justice Nagaprasanna also addressed the issue of continuity in leadership: “To make it more effective, it is imperative that the officers of the CCC, particularly the person who heads the CCC, the Director General of Police, must not be transferred, except owing to exceptional circumstances, so that the functioning of the CCC should not remain illusory. The head of the CCC and his team working in the CCC must not be overnight de-positioned, without the consultation of the head of the CCC.”
On the subject of integration of citizen complaints, the Court recorded: “Yet another aspect that is glaring is that the complaints of cyber crimes are reported to 1930 helpline. The helpline 1930, presently the hub against fraud, must be integrated within the framework of the CCC… Therefore, it is necessary for the helpline 1930 and the conversation therein to be recorded as a part of the police/information technology system and if necessary draw up a zero FIR against each of them.”
The Court stated the exponential rise of cybercrime with statistics: “In 2023 the cases concerning IT Act reported in the CEN Police Station were at 15543 and other police stations were 6710. But, if the graph is seen between 2023 to 2025 the other police stations have 22827 cases and the CEN Police station has 31791… In 2025 it has grown to 30000. The statistics testify the burgeoning scourge… The graph has climbed steeply, a chilling reminder of the exponential growth of cyber crime. Thus, the CCC is not an option, but an imperative born of necessity.”
The Court ordered: “Writ Petition is allowed. Crime in Crime No.1025 of 2024 shall now be reinvestigated by a Special Investigation Team comprising of Sri Pranab Mohanty, IPS, Director General of Police, as head of the team, Sri Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase, IPS, and Sri Sharath M.D., Superintendent of Police, CID.”
“Mandamus issues to the 1st respondent/State Government to forthwith hand over the investigation to the Special Investigation Team aforesaid. The Investigating Officer shall transmit the entire papers of investigation, if any, conducted to the said Special Investigation Team. The Special Investigation Team so constituted shall submit its report within 3 months, from the date it is constituted, and a copy of the same be placed before this Court thereafter.”
“The State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau. Such Investigating Agency will be a pioneer in the new age crime by a new age investigative branch.”
“The Director General of Police of CCC shall submit his report to this Court through the learned Amicus, showing progress in the investigation of cyber crimes or integration of all information and technology cases to be done under one roof i.e., CCC. It would be the duty of the CCC to ensure transparency in the functioning of the Centre and take steps towards such transparency, including alleged corruptions within the Centre.”
The Court also directed that all steps taken towards implementation of its directions, including establishment of the CCC and integration of helpline mechanisms, be placed before the Bench at the next hearing.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, Amicus Curiae
Case Title: Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8403 of 2025 (GM-Police)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
