The Supreme Court has expunged adverse remarks made against a senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer by the Madras High Court after accepting his unconditional apology for an error committed while passing a preventive detention order. The Court, however, emphasised that police officers exercising statutory powers must act with utmost care, particularly when an individual's personal liberty is involved.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh passed the judgment on November 2, 2026, in A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma & Ors.
Background
The appellant, A. Arun, was serving as the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, when he passed a detention order dated September 22, 2025, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The order classified the father of the first respondent, Varsha Sharma, as a "Goonda".
The detention followed Crime No. 178 of 2025, registered on August 29, 2025, over allegations concerning a property transaction involving M/s. Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd. The complainant had allegedly paid ₹1,38,08,095 for an apartment that was not handed over. There were also allegations of subsequent transactions and mortgage of the property using allegedly forged documents.
Challenging the detention, Varsha Sharma approached the Madras High Court through a habeas corpus petition. The High Court set aside the detention order but also made adverse observations against Arun in several paragraphs of its judgment dated May 29, 2026.
Aggrieved by those observations, Arun approached the Supreme Court seeking their removal.
During the hearing, Arun appeared before the Supreme Court. His counsel submitted that he had realised his mistake and was willing to tender an unconditional apology. An affidavit expressing regret was subsequently filed and taken on record.
In his affidavit, Arun acknowledged that he should have accepted his error when summoned by the High Court. He also assured the Supreme Court that he would exercise greater care while discharging his official responsibilities.
The Bench accepted the apology but highlighted the seriousness of exercising preventive detention powers, observing:
"The exercise of power by a public authority must be guided by a careful appreciation of the facts and the applicable law. This assumes particular significance in matters of preventive detention, where the exercise of statutory power directly affects the liberty of an individual. Such power must, therefore, be exercised with utmost circumspection and in strict conformity with the requirements of law."
The Court further reminded senior police officers that their positions carry significant responsibilities. It cautioned that an apology alone cannot replace the duty to exercise statutory powers carefully.
The Bench observed:
"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."
Considering the unconditional apology, the assurance given by Arun and the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court accepted his apology and directed that the adverse remarks made against him in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the Madras High Court judgment be expunged.
The Court clarified that its order was limited to removing the adverse remarks against the officer and would not affect the High Court's decision setting aside the detention order.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.
