Supreme Court Lauds Tamil Nadu’s Use Of Preventive Detention In Cybercrime Cases, Says Traditional Laws Falling Short

The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observations while hearing a petition challenging the detention of Gurumukh Singh, accused of duping a woman of Rs. 84.5 lakh in an elaborate cyber fraud.

Singh was detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (popularly known as the Goondas Act) on August 23, 2024, following a complaint registered by the Cyber Crime Branch.

“It is a good trend coming from the state to use preventive detention laws against cyber offenders. It is a very welcome approach,” the Court remarked, observing that “normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders.”

Organised Network, Economic Impact

The State government submitted that Singh was part of an organised cybercrime ring, which used sophisticated methods to defraud unsuspecting victims.

The investigation reportedly led to the seizure of Rs. 44,000 in cash, over 100 credit/debit cards, five mobile phones, and details of 27 bank accounts, 17 of which were allegedly involved in similar cyber frauds across the country.

The Court acknowledged the broader economic consequences of such crimes, noting that they often leave victims emotionally and financially devastated. It appreciated the proactive use of special preventive mechanisms to counter increasingly complex cyber fraud operations.

Petitioner Alleges Procedural Lapses

Appearing for Singh, Advocate Laxmikant Matadan Shukla contended that the alleged fraud was a solitary act and that his client had no prior criminal record, making the use of preventive detention excessive and unjustified. He further argued that sufficient time was not granted to respond to the detention notice and claimed that the advisory board ignored this lapse when it upheld the order.

The Madras High Court, which had previously dismissed Singh’s challenge to the detention on March 28, was also criticised for not adequately addressing the alleged procedural violations.

The Supreme Court, while agreeing to examine the claims, made it clear that in writ proceedings, it cannot reduce the period of detention. “If the detention order has no basis, the order itself must go. But the period cannot be curtailed, that is the discretion of the state,” the Bench observed.

State Defends Action

The Tamil Nadu government defended its action, asserting that Singh was served all relevant documents in English and Hindi, languages he was well-versed in as an MBA graduate and a native of Delhi. It contended that Singh was fully capable of making effective representations at every stage, before the detaining authority, the advisory board, and the state government.

The High Court had also ruled in the state’s favour, stating, “There is no material explicitly or implicitly to infer that the detenu was deprived of his right to make an effective representation.”

Next Hearing

The Apex Court adjourned the matter to June 25, noting that the state’s written response had not yet been placed before the bench.

Case Title: Gurumukh Singh v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.