The Bench, while hearing matters related to the surge in cyber-fraud, expressed deep concern over the ease with which these scams are executed. The Court noted that while technology has advanced, the safeguards to protect the common man have lagged.

1. The Role of Banks as First Responders The Supreme Court observed that banks are the primary custodians of public money. If a customer who usually conducts small transactions suddenly attempts to transfer a massive amount to an unknown or recently opened account, the bank's internal systems should flag this as "suspicious."

The Court suggested that banks should not just be passive conduits for money but must act as active monitors. This includes:

Sending immediate SMS or call alerts for high-value transactions.
Implementing a "cooling-off" period or a secondary verification for transfers that deviate significantly from a customer's profile.
Collaborating with the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (1930) to freeze suspected accounts instantly.

2. Accountability and Negligence The legal implication of this stance is profound. By suggesting that banks "must" alert customers, the Court is moving toward a framework where a bank’s failure to flag a glaringly suspicious transaction could be viewed as a service deficiency. This empowers consumers to seek accountability if their bank remains a silent spectator while their account is drained.