Apology Cannot Substitute Due Care in Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against IPS Officer A. Arun, Leaves Quashing of Detention Undisturbed
Case Name: A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 2 November 2026.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1186
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh.
Held: Powers of preventive detention directly affect personal liberty and must be exercised with utmost circumspection and in strict conformity with law. Accepting an unconditional apology tendered by IPS officer A. Arun, the Supreme Court expunged specified adverse remarks made against him by the Madras High Court. The Bench nevertheless cautioned that an apology cannot substitute due care in exercising powers affecting an individual’s liberty. The High Court’s decision setting aside the detention order remained undisturbed.
Summary: The Supreme Court was considering an appeal by A. Arun, presently Director of the Tamil Nadu Police Academy, seeking expunction of adverse observations made in the Madras High Court’s judgment dated 29 May 2026 in H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025. Arun was serving as Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, when he passed the preventive detention order under challenge.
The detention arose from a criminal case concerning an apartment transaction with M/s Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged that, despite paying ₹1,38,08,095 towards an apartment, possession was not delivered and the property was subsequently dealt with in favour of third parties and mortgaged using allegedly forged documents. The detenue and his wife were directors of the company. An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, and both were arrested on 1 September 2025. Other cases involving similar allegations were also registered against them.
Acting on a proposal submitted by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Arun passed an order dated 22 September 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, classifying the detenue as a “Goonda”. The detenue’s daughter challenged the order through a habeas corpus petition. The High Court set aside the detention and made adverse observations against Arun in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of its judgment.
Before the Supreme Court, Arun’s counsel submitted that he had realised his error and that the remarks could seriously affect his professional reputation and career. Arun, who was personally present, filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology to both the Supreme Court and the High Court. He acknowledged that he ought to have accepted his error when summoned by the High Court and assured the Bench that he would exercise greater care in discharging his official functions.
The Supreme Court accepted the apology and assurance in the circumstances of the case. It emphasised, however, that senior police officers must appreciate the responsibility accompanying their statutory powers, particularly where personal liberty is involved. The relief granted was confined to expunction of the remarks and did not validate the detention order.
Decision: The Supreme Court directed expunction of the adverse remarks against Arun contained in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the High Court judgment. It expressly clarified that the High Court’s decision setting aside the preventive detention order would remain unaffected.