Masked Realities

Forms of impersonation are unfortunately much more widely used in the digital age. People globally are often vulnerable to such crimes, which may be in physical form or through electronic means.

Impersonation has various forms. For instance, one can be guilty of indulging in “phishing,” which refers to activities that involve impersonating an individual or entity to fraudulently trick people. Usually, culprits try to get victims to reveal sensitive identity or financial information or unwittingly download a program that damages a computer or network. In such a case, an impersonator may send an email or make a phone call pretending to be a co-worker, representative, etc. He may also create a phony website, mobile device app, or social media account meant to look like it’s from a legitimate person or company.

Then there is account takeover. In such a scenario, an impersonator may break into someone’s online account and use it as though it is genuine. They may do so to steal money, sensitive information, etc., or to shield their real identity while committing crimes such as threatening or harassing other users, or act in ways meant to embarrass or defame the account’s actual owner, or for other ulterior motives.

In-person impersonation is the physical form of impersonation. Culprits change how they look, dress, speak, or act in real life to appear as though they were someone else. They may also create a fake identity or false, fabricated documents to make the ruse even more believable.

Then there is identity theft, which involves using pieces of someone’s identifying information to impersonate that individual. Common uses of this type of impersonation are to steal the victim’s money or purchase items using the victim’s details such as payment information. It can also be used for purposes such as protecting the impersonator’s true identity while they commit violations or crimes.

There are also cases where attackers create email addresses that closely resemble those of trusted individuals or entities. They craft messages that mimic the style, tone, and formatting of the legitimate sender to make the impersonation more convincing. These emails typically contain requests for sensitive information, urgent payment instructions, or links to malicious websites. In some cases, attackers might impersonate a CEO and send an email to individuals or finance departments making such requests.

Thus, there are many forms of impersonation. These types are indicative.

Some of the direct and important provisions regarding impersonation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are:

• Section 242: False personation for the purpose of act or proceeding in a suit or prosecution;

• Section 319: Cheating by personation, where a person deceives others by pretending to be someone else, substituting one person for another, or misrepresenting themselves or others;

• Section 204: Personating a public servant;

• Section 172: Personation at elections;

• Section 268: Personation of an assessor.

Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with punishment for cheating by personation using computer resources. There are some other provisions also attracted depending on what and how the crime has been committed.

Impersonation can render transactions and deeds null and void. Recently, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Indraj Singh & Others (2025), the Apex Court considered a bail matter wherein, inter alia, the facts involved a criminal conspiracy aimed at financial gain by arranging for a dummy candidate to take an exam on behalf of another person.

The Court observed that, in India, the reality is that there are far more takers for government jobs than there are jobs available. It noted that, be that as it may, each job—which has a clearly delineated entry process with a prescribed examination and/or interview process—has to be filled strictly in accordance with that process. Absolute scrupulousness in following this process instills and further rejuvenates public faith in the belief that those who are truly deserving of positions are the ones who have deservedly been appointed to such posts.

Each act, such as the one allegedly committed by the respondents, represents possible chinks in the faith of the people in public administration and the executive. The dictum further stated that, since there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam—possibly affecting many who had put in earnest effort to secure a job—the Court concurred with the view of the Trial Court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail.

While allowing the appeal of the State, the judgment duly clarified that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour until such time the offence they are charged with is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment has sent quite an apt and much-needed message across.

Many innocents get robbed of hard-earned money, and many lose their rightful entitlements due to such crimes. Awareness of legal provisions—and most importantly, their strict execution—can create a strong deterrent.

The writer is a practising Advocate in the Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi. Views expressed are personal