Observing that the powers of preventive detention must be exercised with great circumspection by the public authority, the Supreme Court on Monday (November 2) accepted the unconditional apology tendered by a senior IPS officer for an error committed by him while passing a detention order, and not apologizing before the High Court.

The matter arose from a detention order, passed by A. Arun under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, classifying the first respondent's father as a “Goonda”.

The detention was based on allegations that the detenue and his wife, who were directors of a real estate company, had cheated a buyer after receiving over ₹1.38 crore towards the purchase of an apartment. It was alleged that the apartment was not handed over despite execution of the agreements and payment, and that the property was subsequently dealt with in favour of third parties and mortgaged using allegedly forged documents.

A criminal case was registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The detenue and his wife were arrested on September 1, 2025.

The detenue's daughter challenged the detention order before the Madras High Court, which set it aside. However, while doing so, the High Court made adverse observations against A. Arun in its judgment while quashing the detention order. At the relevant time, the officer was Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. The High Court observed that he was habitual in passing such detention orders. The High Court also criticised his appointment as the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, observing that only officers of high calibre are given such posts.

The Supreme Court censured the officer, who is currently the Director of the Tamil Nadu Police Academy, while expunging the remarks.

"The impugned order has been deliberately passed. We would normally not make such a 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 High Court said.

For expunging the adverse remarks, the officer approached the Supreme Court with an unconditional apology.

While accepting the apology tendered by the officer, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan, and Aparesh Kumar Singh expunged the adverse remarks against the officer in the impugned order, and at the same time cautioned the officer to discharge his official duties with greater care.

“…we consider it appropriate to observe that an officer holding a senior position in the police administration is expected to appreciate the significance of the duties entrusted to him and the responsibility that accompanies the exercise of statutory powers. The appellant's expression of regret and his assurance to exercise greater care in the future are duly noted. We trust that the same shall be reflected in the discharge of his official functions hereafter. We also caution that the tendering of an apology cannot be regarded as a substitute for due care in the exercise of powers affecting the liberty of a person.”, the Court said.

“Having regard to the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant, the assurance furnished by him, and the circumstances of the present case, we accept the apology. In these circumstances, the adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraph nos. 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the impugned judgment are directed to be expunged.”, the Court added.

The court clarified that the impugned order setting aside the detention remains unaffected.

Appearance:

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. for the appellant

Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Additional Advocate General for respondent nos. 2 to 5; and

Mr. Vairawan A.S., Adv. for respondent no. 1.