New Delhi, Jun 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday commended the State of Tamil Nadu for invoking preventive detention laws to tackle cybercrime, describing it as a "welcome trend" in combating growing digital frauds.
A Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing a petition challenging the preventive detention of one Abhijeet Singh, a cybercrime accused.
Singh’s detention under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, had earlier been upheld by the Madras High Court.
"This is a good trend coming from the State , that preventive detention laws are being used against cyber offenders. It's a very welcome approach. Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders," remarked Justice Mehta during the hearing.
The petitioner, Singh’s father, argued that the detention order was unconstitutional and violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
He contended that the alleged cyber fraud was a one-off incident and did not disturb public order.
He also claimed that the notice for the Advisory Board hearing was served too close to the hearing date, preventing the detenu from making an effective representation.
Singh, a Punjab native residing in New Delhi, was arrested on July 25, 2024, following a complaint of a cyber fraud amounting to Rs 84.5 lakh lodged at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Theni district.
The complainant, Bhanumathi, alleged that Rs 12.14 lakh was transferred into Singh’s account operated under the entity name M/s Creative Craaft.
Investigations revealed that Singh had floated four companies and opened multiple bank accounts in the names of his family members to route the fraudulent funds.
The District Collector issued the detention order on August 23, 2024, which was subsequently confirmed by the Advisory Board on September 25, and by the State Government for a 12-month period on November 9, 2024.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Singh had no prior criminal record and emphasised that preventive detention for the maximum period was unjustified.
In response, Justice Mehta observed, “That is the discretion of the State. The period of detention cannot be decided by the court in writ jurisdiction.
"If there is no basis for detention, the order itself has to go, the period cannot be curtailed independently.”
The Court took note of the counter affidavit filed by the State and directed the Registry to upload it on record. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
Earlier, the Madras High Court had dismissed the habeas corpus petition, holding that the detention order was backed by sufficient material, the procedures were duly followed, and there was no legal infirmity to warrant interference.
UNI SNG