HYDERABAD: Telangana tops in cyber-attacks, followed by Tamil Nadu and Delhi, according to “India Cyber Threat Report 2025” released by Data Security Council of India (DSCI) on Thursday. Banking, financial services and insurance, healthcare, and hospitality are the most attacked sectors, the report said.
“These regions experience disproportionately high volumes of malware activity, possibly due to higher digital adoption and connectivity levels,” the report said.
“While major tech hubs like Telangana (15.03% of detections) and Tamil Nadu (12%) remain primary targets, we’re seeing increasing activity in Tier 2 cities. This suggests that cybercriminals are expanding their reach beyond traditional targets, possibly because smaller cities might have less robust cyber defences,” the report added.
‘Complainant has right to file poll plea’
Terming that the complainant’s fundamental right was violated as his privacy was breached, Luthra argued that the men and equipment of the state govt, which should be utilised for lawful purposes, were used for the benefit of private individuals.
“State intelligence personnel and equipment were used to tap the phones of the de facto complainant, which needs to be investigated,” he said, adding Goud was informed by Apple, the mobile manufacturer, through an email that his phone was being tapped.
Harish Rao’s lawyer Ramchander Rao said, “Goud is a habitual complainant and has filed many complaints before police alleging phone tapping and also filed an election petition challenging the election of Harish Rao”.
Luthra, however, argued that it was the right of the complainant to file an election petition challenging the election of Rao, which cannot be disputed. He also told the court that the only remedy before Harish Rao in this case was an anticipatory bail and prayed to the court that Rao should not be given any protection from arrest as this was a serious offence of “phone tapping”.
Justice K Lakshman, after hearing the contentions of Siddharth Luthra, said he recently granted protection to a petitioner in an SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act case but directed the investigation to continue. The issue went up to the SC and is pending there.
