Cybercrime Vulnerability in Delhi

A Lokniti-CSDS study has revealed that Delhi residents lost over ?700 crore to cybercrime in 2024, exposing structural weaknesses in awareness, reporting, and redressal mechanisms, especially among low-income groups, despite high digital penetration.

Assessing the Cybersecurity Landscape in Urban India: Challenges, Gaps, and Institutional Response

Scale of the Problem: Cybercrime in Delhi

• In 2024 alone, cyber fraud caused financial losses of over ?700 crore in Delhi.
• Delhi has become a hotspot for digital crimes due to high internet usage and widespread adoption of digital financial platforms.
• Structural inadequacies in cyber policing and public grievance redressal remain persistent despite the scale of the threat.

Awareness of Cyber Threats

• Encouraging Awareness Levels:
  • >90% of respondents were aware of common cybercrimes like OTP frauds, fake calls, and phishing.
  • 61% knew about newer threats like "digital arrest", showing a lag in awareness of emerging scams.
• Gaps in Reporting Awareness:
  • While 93% knew complaints can be filed, only:
    • 42% knew about the 1930 cyber helpline.
    • 25% were aware of cyber police stations.
    • 30% knew about the official reporting website.
  • This highlights a gap between generic awareness and procedural literacy.

Preventive Measures and Income Divide

• Adoption of Preventive Practices:
  • High usage of basic safety protocols:
    • 87% avoid suspicious links.
    • 85% use trusted sources for app downloads.
    • 79% use strong passwords.
• Advanced Safety Gaps:
  • Only 50% use antivirus or regularly change passwords.
  • Clear digital divide:
    • High-income: 73% use antivirus, 75% use 2FA.
    • Low-income: Only 20% and 31% respectively.

Cybercrime Reporting and Recovery Mechanisms

• Under-reporting Trend:
  • 76% of cybercrime victims did not report the crime.
  • Common reporting modes:
    • 29% to local police.
    • 26% to cyber cells.
    • 20% via official portal.
    • 15% on helpline.
• Recovery Status:
  • 70% of those who lost money recovered nothing.
  • Only 17% had full recovery, and 6%
• Institutional Gaps:
  • Only 21% of victims reported cases.
  • 37% found filing complaints difficult.
  • 48% were dissatisfied with institutional response.

Psychological and Financial Burden

• 58% faced financial loss.
• 26% suffered mental distress, indicating a dual burden.
• Perception vs Reality Gap:
  • 48% believe cyber fraud losses cannot be recovered.
  • Leads to distrust in formal systems and low complaint rates.

Trust and the Role of Institutions

• Despite risks, trust in digital payment apps remains high.
• 54% believe cybersecurity is a joint responsibility between government and citizens.
• 40% want more awareness campaigns, preferring preventive education over technical fixes.

Way Forward

• Institutional Strengthening:
  • Fill personnel vacancies in cyber police stations.
  • Ensure cybercrime cells have trained investigators per IT Act provisions.
• Procedural Simplification:
  • Standardize and simplify reporting via:
    • Cyber helpline (1930)
    • Website: cybercrime.gov.in
  • Make portals multilingual and mobile-friendly.
• Targeted Awareness Campaigns:
  • Expand reach of government schemes like Cyber Swachhta Kendra.
  • Use local influencers and social media for awareness in low-income communities.
• Capacity Building:
  • Provide training in digital safety at the school and community level.
  • Incentivize use of antivirus, 2FA, and secure platforms through subsidies or public schemes.
• Robust Redressal Mechanism:
  • Strengthen consumer grievance forums.
  • Create dedicated cybercrime compensation boards to ensure partial or full recovery.