The Supreme Court has expunged the Madras High Court’s adverse remarks against IPS Officer A Arun after accepting his unconditional apology, while cautioning him that an apology is no substitute for due care when exercising powers that affect a person’s liberty.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on November 2, 2026 accepted the unconditional apology of senior IPS officer A. Arun over a Goondas Act detention order he passed as Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, and directed that the adverse remarks made against him by the Madras High Court be expunged [A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma & Ors.].
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh delivered the reportable judgment, authored by Justice Vikram Nath, in a criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16725 of 2026.
The detention order
The officer, now Director of the Tamil Nadu Police Academy, had passed a detention order dated September 22, 2025 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 father of the first respondent, Varsha Sharma, as a “Goonda”.
The order arose from Crime No. 178 of 2025, registered on August 29, 2025 on a complaint by one Ravi. The complaint alleged that he had paid Rs 1,38,08,095 to M/s. Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd., of which the detenue and his wife were directors, for an apartment that was never handed over, and that the property was later dealt with in favour of third parties and mortgaged on allegedly forged documents. The case was registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, and the couple were arrested on September 1, 2025.
On a proposal from the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, the officer passed the detention order. The detenue’s daughter challenged it in H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025, and the Madras High Court, by its judgment of May 29, 2026, set the detention aside. In doing so, it made adverse observations against the officer in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23, including that he was habituated to passing such orders and that the order had been passed for extraneous reasons, and it censured him.
The apology
The officer was present in the Supreme Court during the hearing. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra submitted that he had realised his error and was willing to tender an unconditional apology, and that the remarks, if left on record, could seriously affect his professional reputation and career. An affidavit tendering the apology was filed.
The Bench recorded that in the affidavit the officer regretted not apologising before the High Court and failing to accept the error in passing the detention order, accepted that he ought to have done so when summoned by the High Court, tendered his apology to both courts, and assured the Supreme Court that he would exercise greater care in future.
What the Court held
Stressing the gravity of preventive detention powers, the Bench said:
“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.”
It then added a pointed caution for the officer:
“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… 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.”
ALSO READ: MP High Court Quashes NSA Detention Order That Fails To Specify The Period Of Detention
Accepting the apology in view of the assurance given and the circumstances of the case, the Court directed that the adverse remarks in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the High Court’s judgment be expunged. It clarified:
“the present order is confined to the adverse remarks made against the appellant and shall not affect the decision of the High Court setting aside the detention order.”
The appeal was disposed of. The cheating and forgery allegations against the detenue and his wife in Crime No. 178 of 2025 remain untested, the Supreme Court expressed no view on their merits, and they are entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling sends a two-sided message. It gives a senior officer relief from judicial strictures once he owns the error, but it puts on record that preventive detention, which bypasses a trial, must be used with the utmost care and strictly within the law.
By keeping the High Court’s quashing of the detention intact, the Court also made clear that expunging remarks against a detaining authority does nothing to revive a detention order already found unsustainable.
Case Title: A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma & Ors. [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16725 of 2026]
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1186
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
For the Appellant: Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Prashanto Chandra Sen, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent No. 1: Vairawan A.S., Advocate