When I recently participated in the Mid-Career Training Programme at the SVP National Police Academy, Hyderabad, one theme stood out unmistakably: the growing centrality of Artificial Intelligence and cybercrime in contemporary policing. This emphasis is not incidental.
It reflects a fundamental shift in crime itself, driven by the rapid expansion of the digital economy and the deep integration of technology into everyday life.
India’s leapfrog growth in the digital space has transformed governance, commerce, and citizen engagement. Digital payments, online public services, and interconnected platforms have expanded inclusion and efficiency at an unprecedented scale. Yet, this very transformation has also widened the attack surface for cyber-enabled crime.
Cybersecurity breaches and financial fraud are no longer peripheral law-and-order concerns; they now sit at the intersection of internal security, economic stability, and public trust. Addressing this challenge cannot rely on episodic enforcement actions. It demands a coordinated, technology-driven, and institutionally anchored response that matches the sophistication and scale of modern cybercrime.
Recognising this structural shift, the Ministry of Home Affairs established the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre in 2018. The creation of I4C marked a departure from fragmented responses towards a comprehensive national ecosystem for the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of cybercrime.
In a relatively short period, the institution has emerged as the nerve centre of India’s cybercrime response, strengthening coordination across law enforcement agencies and bridging operational gaps between States and the Centre. Its elevation as an Attached Office of the MHA in July 2024 reflects the growing recognition that cybercrime governance requires permanent institutional capacity, not ad hoc arrangements.
What distinguishes India’s approach is its acknowledgment that cybercrime is inherently borderless. Jurisdictional silos, whether geographical or institutional, are ill-suited to a crime domain that operates in real time and across networks. I4C’s whole-of-system approach—combining coordination, capacity building, and sustained public awareness—addresses this reality head-on.
It also aligns India’s domestic cyber strategy with an increasingly global outlook. Cooperation frameworks such as the Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Homeland Security underscore the understanding that cyber threats are transnational and that effective responses must be grounded in shared expertise and international collaboration.
At the operational level, technology has become both the challenge and the solution. Platforms such as Samanvaya have redefined coordination by enabling data-driven linkages across States and Union Territories.
By integrating analytics, real-time intelligence, and techno-legal support, these systems have strengthened investigation outcomes and disrupted cybercrime networks at scale. The use of modules like Pratibimb, which map criminal infrastructure and offender locations, reflects a shift towards predictive and intelligence-led policing in the cyber domain.
Nowhere is this shift more consequential than in the fight against financial fraud. In cybercrime, speed determines success. The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System, coupled with the national helpline 1930, has institutionalised rapid response mechanisms that prioritise fund recovery and immediate intervention.
The scale of prevented losses demonstrates a critical lesson for digital governance: citizen-facing systems, when backed by institutional coordination, can significantly blunt the impact of cybercrime.
Equally important is the role of multi-agency collaboration. The establishment of the Cyber Fraud Mitigation Centre at I4C has brought banks, payment intermediaries, telecom providers, IT platforms, and law enforcement agencies onto a single operational plane. This convergence recognises that cybercrime ecosystems thrive on fragmented accountability and dismantling them requires shared responsibility across public and private actors.
India’s federal structure adds another layer of complexity. With ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ constitutionally designated as State subjects, States and Union Territories remain the primary actors in cybercrime enforcement. The Centre’s role, therefore, is not substitution but supplementation—through advisories, financial assistance, and capacity building.
Schemes such as the Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children initiative illustrate how targeted funding, forensic infrastructure, and specialised training can strengthen frontline capabilities across jurisdictions.
Taken together, these measures point to a maturing cyber governance framework—one that is layered, adaptive, and institutionally grounded. Yet, the nature of cybercrime ensures that the challenge will remain dynamic.
Technology evolves faster than regulation, and criminal innovation often precedes enforcement responses. The true test, therefore, lies not in reacting to individual threats but in continuously strengthening systems that can anticipate, absorb, and neutralise risks at scale.
In the digital age, effective governance is defined not merely by enforcement outcomes but by institutional foresight. India’s evolving cybercrime architecture demonstrates that building trust in a digital society requires sustained investment in coordination, capacity, and credibility.
As the digital economy deepens, the resilience of these institutions will increasingly determine not just cyber safety, but the confidence with which citizens engage with the digital state itself.
(The author is an IPS officer; Views expressed are personal)
