Why Punjab and Haryana High Court called cybercrime a 'silent virus' threatening Digital Bharat

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has compared cybercrime to a “silent virus”. Justice Sumeet Goel observed that cybercrimes “erode public confidence in digital financial transaction platforms,” which is not merely an individual financial loss, but a systemic threat to the architecture of Digital Bharat.

In law, trust element is crucial because digital systems—payment gateways, online banking, e-wallets—function on the presumption that users’ data and money are secure.

When cyber frauds multiply, they breed suspicion and fear, discouraging people from using digital services, thereby stalling the nation’s digital growth objectives.

That legal risk to public trust is why courts see cybercrime as different from traditional crimes like theft or cheating that usually harm individuals in isolated events.

The reference to silent virus is significant as it stealthily destroys the very trust that digital financial systems rely on.

Why the expression 'silent virus'?

Justice Goel’s analogy of a “silent virus” captures several legal and practical realities:

Cybercrime operates invisibly, often without physical traces, much like a virus spreading silently through a system before it is detected.

One cyber offence can harm hundreds or thousands of victims simultaneously with a single digital act.

The damage extends far beyond money—it shakes confidence in institutions, financial platforms, and the broader digital economy.

Unlike conventional crimes, where a stolen wallet affects just one person, cyber fraud might compromise entire payment systems or user databases, triggering cascading effects across society and institutions. Legally, this justifies treating cybercrime as an offence that endangers not just individuals but systemic public interests.

How the matter reached court—and the outcome

The order arose while Justice Sumeet Goel was deciding a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered at the Cyber police station in Narnaul. The petitioner was accused of being involved in a cyber financial fraud amounting to Rs 10 lakh. According to the State, the petitioner allegedly permitted his bank account to be used for siphoning off the defrauded amount.

Taking note of the gravity and the potential societal impact of cybercrimes, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. The Bench ruled that overlooking such offences would mean “turning a Nelson’s eye” to the far-reaching consequences of digital frauds, emphasizing that judicial intervention must be strict where offences undermine trust in digital systems.

The 'Digital Bharat' connection

The High Court’s use of “Digital Bharat” rather than merely “digital India” ties cybercrime’s threat directly to the government’s ambitious national agenda to digitize services, financial transactions, and citizen-government interactions.

“Digital Bharat” is more than a slogan; in legal and policy discourse, it signals a vision of technological inclusion extending even to rural and economically weaker sections.

Cybercrime threatens that vision because any significant loss of public trust risks leaving people reluctant to adopt digital platforms, especially those who are new or vulnerable users. That has legal implications for economic rights, digital inclusion, and even citizens’ right to access government services online.

Why 'Bharat' and not just 'India'?

Justice Goel’s wording—“Digital Bharat”—reflects a deliberate choice echoing government terminology increasingly visible in official documents and laws like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. “Bharat” carries a cultural and constitutional significance as one of the two official names of the country under Article 1 of the Constitution.

In judicial observations, using “Bharat” rather than “India” sometimes emphasizes national identity and domestic initiatives rather than merely projecting a modern image to the world.

Moreover, phrases like “Made in Bharat” or “Digital Bharat” highlight indigenously developed solutions and policies aimed at local needs, not just global competitiveness. In legal reasoning, it underscores that cybercrime is not merely an economic crime but a direct assault on the nation’s sovereign digital ambitions and public welfare.

Legal Takeaway: Why courts take cybercrime seriously

From a legal perspective, the High Court’s remarks underline why judges adopt stricter scrutiny in cybercrime cases. Courts recognize that such offences have high potential forget mass victimisation. It also undermines public trust essential for a digital economy and threaten national objectives enshrined in policies like Digital Bharat.

This judicial approach sends a message that cybercrimes are not merely private disputes over lost money. Instead, they are systemic threats demanding stringent legal action to protect society’s faith in digital systems—a faith crucial for Bharat’s digital transformation.