A brief but important correction unfolded in Court No. 2 of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, when the bench stepped in to fix a factual slip in its earlier order linked to the rising menace of so-called “digital arrests.” The matter was taken up on oral mentioning, and the correction was made without delay, reflecting the court’s emphasis on accuracy, even in procedural details.
Background
The case arises from a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Supreme Court itself, titled In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents. The petition deals with complaints where individuals were allegedly coerced or intimidated online using forged papers and fake legal threats - a problem that has quietly grown in recent months.
On November 17, 2025, the court had passed an order in an interlocutory application connected to this petition. However, while referring to a suspect or accused person in that order, an incorrect name found its way into the record. This discrepancy was flagged before the bench during oral mentioning.
Court’s Observations
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submission straightaway. It was pointed out that paragraph 3 of the earlier order mentioned the name “Vijay Khanna,” whereas the correct name of the suspect was “Vinay Samaniya.”
Recording this, the bench observed, in effect, that such an error needed immediate correction so that the judicial record remains clear and unambiguous. Though the order itself was short, the message was evident - even a name matters when liberty and criminal allegations are involved.
The judges accepted the clarification and proceeded to correct the record formally, avoiding any future confusion for investigators, lawyers, or lower courts relying on the Supreme Court’s directions.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Karnataka Land Acquisition Dispute Involving S.V. Global Mill
Decision
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ordered that its earlier order dated November 17, 2025, shall be read with the corrected name, substituting “Vinay Samaniya” in place of “Vijay Khanna,” thereby rectifying the mistake on record.
Case Title: In Re: Victims of Digital Arrest Related to Forged Documents
Case No.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025
Case Type: Suo Motu Criminal Writ Petition
Decision Date: 20 November 2025
