Shiroor Mutt seer gets notice from Sode Mutt
Udupi: The Dwandwa Mutt of Shiroor Mutt, Sode Vadiraj Mutt has issued a notice to Shiroor Mutt seer Lakshmivara Theertha Swami for issuing derogatory remarks against the Asta Mutt seers and also accepting the fact in public that he has fathered children.
It can be recalled that recently following the declaration by the Shiroor Mutt seer that he has children and also other seers of Asta Mutts do have children had created a controversy and had also compelled the seers of Asta Mutt to convene an urgent meeting during midnight hours which was headed by the Pejawar Mutt seer Vishwesha Theertha Swami. The senior pontiff had come down for few hours from Bengaluru only for the purpose of attending the meeting.
The Shiroor Mutt seer had exposed the illegal activities as he claimed taking place within Asta Mutts in an interview to a private channel.
The meeting held by the Asta Mutt seers had decided to issue notice to Shiroor Mutt seer through its Dwandwa Mutt-Sode Vadiraj Mutt. The internal notice issued by the Sode Vadiraj Mutt seer Vishwavallabha Theertha Swami demanded a clarification over the allegations made by the Shiroor Mutt pontiff, besides asking for apologising in public.
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.
