Women's reservation bill approved by Cabinet: MoS Prahlad Patel
New Delhi (PTI): The Union Cabinet on Monday approved the women's reservation bill, Minister of State Prahlad Singh Patel said.
"Only the Modi government had the moral courage to fulfil the demand for women's reservation which was proved by the approval of the cabinet. Congratulations Narendra Modi ji and congratulations to the Modi government," the minister said on X.
Patel is the Minister of State for Food Processing Industries and Jal Shakti.
The Union Cabinet met this evening after the first sitting of the five-day special session of Parliament.
The Cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi went on for over 90 minutes.
Cutting across political lines, leaders have demanded the introduction of the women's reservation bill, which guarantees a 33 per cent quota in Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
The Women's Reservation Bill passed by the Rajya Sabha in 2010 had provision for 33 per cent reservation for women in Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
Earlier addressing the media, the Prime Minister said that "historic decisions" will be taken this Parliament session which may be of short duration but is big on occasion.
The cabinet meeting was attended by Union ministers including Rajnath Singh, Amit Shah, Piyush Goyal, Pralhad Joshi, S Jaishankar, Nirmala Sitharaman, Dharmendra Pradhan, Nitin Gadkari and Arjun Ram Meghwal.
Ever since it was announced that the Parliament session would be held from September 18-22, there has been speculation on various bills, including the women's reservation bill.
In his remarks in Lok Sabha on the discussion on 75 years of Parliament, he asserted that the contribution of women parliamentarians has been on the rise over the years.
Congress spokesman Jairam Ramesh welcomed the "reported decision" of the Union Cabinet.
"It's been a long-standing demand of the Congress party to implement women's reservation. W
"We welcome the reported decision of the Union Cabinet and await the details of the Bill. This could have very well been discussed in the all-party meeting before the Special Session, and consensus could have been built instead of operating under a veil of secrecy," Ramesh said on X
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.
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.
