Supreme Court lauds Tamil Nadu for using preventive detention against cyber offenders
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday commended the Tamil Nadu government for invoking preventive detention laws to tackle cybercrime, observing that conventional criminal laws have proven ineffective in curbing such offences.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, while hearing a plea challenging a detention order against an accused in a cyber fraud case, remarked, “This is a good trend coming from the state that preventive detention laws are being used against cyber law offenders. It's a very welcome approach. Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders.”
The bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi was considering a special leave petition filed by the father of the detenu, Abhijeet Singh, against a Madras High Court judgment that upheld his preventive detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982.
The detenu, a resident of New Delhi and originally from Punjab, was arrested on July 25, 2024, following a complaint at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Theni District. The complainant, Bhanumathi, alleged that she was defrauded of ₹84.5 lakh, of which ₹12.14 lakh had reportedly been transferred to an account operated by the detenu under the name ‘M/s Creative Craaft.’
Police investigation revealed that Abhijeet Singh had established four companies in his and his family members’ names and opened multiple bank accounts to route the defrauded money. A preventive detention order was issued against him by the District Collector on August 23, 2024. The Advisory Board confirmed the detention on September 25, 2024, and the State Government ratified it for a full term of 12 months on November 9, 2024.
Before the apex court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the detention was unconstitutional, citing a violation of Article 22(5) and procedural lapses. He contended that the incident was a one-time offence and did not disturb public order. He also pointed out that the detenu had no previous criminal record and was not given adequate time to make a representation, with the notice for a September 25 hearing being served only on September 23, while the detenu was in Madurai and the hearing was in Chennai.
Justice Mehta questioned whether these issues were raised before the Advisory Board, to which the counsel replied affirmatively. The bench noted that the duration of detention lies within the state's discretion and cannot be curtailed by the court unless the detention itself lacks legal basis.
“If there is no basis for detention then the order itself has to go; the period cannot be curtailed based on that. You come on Wednesday, we will see,” Justice Mehta said, adjourning the matter to June 25 for further hearing.
Earlier, the Madras High Court had dismissed the habeas corpus plea, concluding that the detention did not suffer from any procedural or constitutional infirmities. The High Court held that all relevant materials had been placed before the Advisory Board and the detenu’s representations were duly considered.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Skeleton handed over to police, says Lawyer for Dharmasthala mass burials case complainant
Belthangady: A skeleton, allegedly buried as mentioned in the complaint related to the Dharmasthala mass burials case, has been exhumed and handed over to the Belthangady police. Pawan Deshpande, the lawyer representing the complainant, stated that all necessary legal procedures were followed and a formal statement was recorded before the judge.
The complainant, who has alleged the mass burial of bodies in Dharmasthala, appeared before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court of Belthangady Taluk on July 11 to give his statement.
Speaking to the media after the court proceedings, advocate Pawan Deshpande said, “The complainant is prepared to clearly identify the locations where the bodies were buried. We will cooperate fully with the police on whatever date they set. Relevant information has already been submitted, and there is a concern that evidence could be destroyed. It is now the responsibility of the police to act and exhume the bodies as per the statement.”
When asked about the identity of the accused in the case, Deshpande clarified that the details have been submitted to the court and are with the investigating officer. “We do not have access to that information,” he said.
The lawyer also confirmed that the complainant has not been arrested or taken into police custody. “He is with us and will appear whenever the police direct him to. The complainant is cooperating with the investigation,” Deshpande added.
