Madras High Court Censures IPS Officer A Arun For Passing 'Reckless' Detention Order Against Realtor, Says He Habitually Passes Such Orders

The Madras High Court on Friday (May 29th), censured former Commissioner of Police and current Chief of Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, A Arun IPS for having passed a detention order against a realtor in an alleged fraud case.

While quashing the detention order, a division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the detention order was passed for extraneous reasons.

Noting that Arun habitually passed such orders which were ultimately quashed by the court, the bench said that Arun ought to know that preventive detention orders could not be passed recklessly.

"The impugned order has been deliberately passed. We would normally not make such remark. But we are constrained to do so because Thiru Arun IPS is habituated to issuing such orders, most of which have come to the notice of this Court and quashed. Even before us, he did not appear to feel that he had passed a wrong order. He strongly justified his conduct. He ought to be aware that a preventive detention order cannot be passed recklessly as it has serious implications on the detenu's liberty. The detention order has been passed for extraneous reasons. We censure Thiru Arun IPS., for having passed the impugned detention order," the court said. 

The matter pertains to a habeas corpus plea challenging the detention of a real estate developer, Santosh Sharma, under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. Sharma was accused of selling multiple apartments to purchasers and making double documents again in the name of other accused persons. 

Sharma's daughter had filed the plea before the court. It was argued that the pending cases against Sharma could have been dealt with under ordinary law and there was no necessity to invoke the provisions of preventive detention. It was argued that even if the allegations against Sharma were taken to be true, it was a private dispute of a civil and criminal nature between individuals and would fall within the purview of "law and order" and not "threat to public order".

When the matter first came up before the court, the bench said that the detention order was shocking and that reading it had shocked the court's judicial conscience. The court then summoned A Arun, then Commissioner of Police, who had passed the detention order. It may be noted that Arun has now been appointed as Chief of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

Following this, when the matter was taken up on Wednesday (27th May), the court expressed displeasure at the manner in which the court bailiff was made to wait for almost 2 hours when he had gone to the IPS officer's office to serve the court summons. The court ordered the office staff, who made the bailiff wait, to appear before the bench and asked the IPS officer to wait in court till then. 

When the staff appeared before the bench, the bench censured him and said that the court would take action. The court also remarked that the Bombay High Court had initiated contempt proceedings when an office staff disrespected a court bailiff. The court also said that it had summoned Arun to put him on notice before issuing directions.

In its order quashing the detention order, while Sharma had willfully breached terms of contract which deserved to be prosecuted in court or law, his acts did not cause threat to public safety as such. 

Noting that such cases were being registered routinely all over the State, the court said that it would be ridiculous to claim that these cases would disturb the tempo of social life. 

"Cases such as the one on hand are registered routinely all over the State. We are more than satisfied that the ground case as well as the adverse cases do not have the potential to disturb public order. It is ridiculous to claim that they will disturb the even tempo of social life. There is absolutely no warrant for invoking the draconian law of preventive detention for such cases," the court said.

The court also noted that the ground case and the adverse cases were between 2020 and 2023 and there was no live and proximate link with the detenu's past conduct. The court thus held that there was no urgent or imperative need to detain the detenu. 

The court remarked that Arun, being a direct recruit IPS officer with 28 years of service would have known that the cases did not fall under the category of public order. The court thus held that Arun had deliberately passed the order. 

"The detaining authority knew fully well that the case on hand does not fall within the category of public order. He also knew that he was placing reliance on events that had taken place not less than two years earlier. The detaining authority is not a novice. He is a direct recruit to I.P.S. He has served in various capacities. If with 28 years of experience such an order can be passed, it would only mean that it was done deliberately and with full knowledge of law and the facts involved," the court said.

The court also gave examples of detention orders which were passed against journalists Savukku Shankar and Varaaki, which were ultimately quashed by the court. The court stated that this was not the first instance where the detaining authority (Arun) was coming under court's notice. 

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Sunny Sheen for Ms.R.Arthi

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.John Sathyan State Public Prosecutor assisted by C.R.Malarvannan

Case Title: Varsha Sharma v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others

Case No: HCP 2066 of 2025