The Supreme Court yesterday, June 24, 2025, lauded the Tamil Nadu government's initiative to enact preventive detention laws to deal with cybercrime cases. A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said such steps are commendable when regular criminal laws fall short.

Read also: SC Quashes Madras HC Arrest Order Against Tamil Nadu ADGP; Probe Now Handed Over to CB-CID

"It is a good trend coming from the state that preventive detention laws are being used against cyber crime offenders. This is a very welcome approach. Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these criminals," - Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked during the hearing.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the father of cyber crime accused Abhijeet Singh, challenging the preventive detention order earlier upheld by the Madras High Court. The habeas corpus petition claimed that the detention was unconstitutional and violated Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution as well as procedural requirements under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.

Read also: UP Gangsters Act cannot be used as a tool of harassment: Supreme Court

According to the police, Singh, originally from Punjab and based in New Delhi, was arrested on July 25, 2024 in a cyber fraud case involving a complaint by a person named Bhanumathi at the Theni Cyber ​​Crime Police Station. The amount of the alleged fraud was ₹84.5 lakh, of which more than ₹12 lakh was allegedly transferred to an account called M/s Creative Craft, which is speculated to be linked to Singh.

Further investigation revealed that Singh had set up four fake companies using the names of his family members and opened multiple bank accounts to launder the defrauded money.

Read also: Indian Constitution: A Revolutionary Tool for Social Transformation, not Just Governance - CJI BR Gavai

A preventive detention order was issued by the district collector on August 23, 2024. It was later confirmed by the advisory board on September 25, 2024 and the state government extended the period of detention by 12 months on November 9, 2024.

The counsel for the petitioner before the Supreme Court argued that:

• The case involved only one incident and did not affect public order.
• The notice for the advisory board hearing was given on September 23, while the hearing was on September 25, thereby not giving sufficient time to the detenu.
• The detenu had no prior criminal history.

Justice Mehta questioned whether these issues were raised before the advisory board. On receiving an affirmative answer, he said:

“It is the discretion of the state. The period of detention cannot be decided by the court in writ jurisdiction. If there is no ground for detention then the order itself should be struck down, the period cannot be reduced on it. You come on Wednesday, we will see.”

Read also: Supreme Court Confirms That Interim Stay in PPL vs Azure Hospitality Case Applies Only to Connected Parties,

Earlier, the Madras High Court had dismissed the habeas corpus petition, finding that all procedural requirements were met and there was no constitutional violation. The Court ruled that sufficient evidence was produced before the advisory board and the representations of the detenu were properly considered.

The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing of the case on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.