Madras HC Quashes Goonda Detention of Property Developer, Censures IPS Officer for Passing Order “for Extraneous Reasons”

A Madras High Court Division Bench quashed the preventive detention of a property developer as a Goonda, holding that contractual fraud affecting only financial interests cannot constitute a threat to public order, and formally censured the detaining officer by name for passing the order deliberately and with full knowledge of the law.

The Madras High Court on 29 May 2026 allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Varsha Sharma, daughter of detenu Santhosh Sharma, and quashed the order dated 22 September 2025 by which the then Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, had detained her father as a “Goonda” under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). The Division Bench, whose order was authored by Justice G.R. Swaminathan, held that the alleged acts of the detenu — involving forged sale deeds and mortgage of an apartment in a real estate project — injured only the financial interests of specific individuals and carried no potential to disturb public order or the even tempo of social life. The Bench went further and formally censured Thiru Arun, IPS, the officer who passed the detention order, finding that it had been passed deliberately and for extraneous reasons.

The Detention and the Allegations Against the Detenu

Santhosh Sharma, aged 46, is a Director of M/s. Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Style One Properties Pvt. Ltd.), which undertook construction of 234 apartments at Survey Nos. 1353/2A and 1353/2B, No. 5, 200 Feet Road, Ramdas Nagar, Kolathur, Madhavaram Main Road, Chennai.

Three criminal cases formed the basis of the detention. The first adverse case, Crime No. 100 of 2023 registered at CCB-II, Chennai, arose from a complaint by Poornajothi, wife of Sudheesh (described in the judgment as a sitting Member of Parliament and leader of the DMDK party). Poornajothi alleged that her signatures were forged and 48 apartments were sold without her consent, causing a loss of Rs. 42,94,40,000. The second adverse case, Crime No. 157 of 2025 at CCB-I, Chennai, was registered on the complaint of Vijaya and Thiyagachitran, who had paid Rs. 74,09,400 for a flat that was instead registered in the name of Kalpana Sharma, the detenu's wife, who then mortgaged it with LIC Housing Finance Limited.

The ground case, Crime No. 178 of 2025, was registered on 29 August 2025 on the complaint of one Ravi, who had paid Rs. 1,38,08,095 in instalments between 1 July 2016 and 10 November 2018 for a triple-bedroom apartment. A sale deed was executed in Ravi's favour in 2017. Suppressing that transaction, Madhavarajan, an authorised signatory of the company, executed a fresh construction agreement and sale deed bearing Document Nos. 8480 and 8481 of 2021 in favour of Kalpana Sharma on 16 December 2021. On the same day, Kalpana Sharma mortgaged the apartment bearing No. 1103 with LIC Housing Finance Limited for Rs. 1,20,65,000. The offences registered included Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Santhosh Sharma and his wife were arrested, and he was already in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 157 of 2025 when he was formally arrested on 8 September 2025 in the ground case.

The detention order dated 22 September 2025, bearing D.O.No.719/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025, was passed by the then Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. The detaining authority recorded satisfaction that Santhosh Sharma was a Goonda and that there was a compelling necessity to detain him to prevent him from indulging in further activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The Legal Question: Public Order or Mere Law and Order?

The central question before the Bench was whether the detention order was legally sustainable. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the detenu's acts constituted a mere breach of agreement and did not warrant invocation of preventive detention law. The State Public Prosecutor contended that the activities posed a threat to the maintenance of public order.

The Bench turned to the Supreme Court's decision in Pushkar Mukherji v. State of West Bengal, (1969) 1 SCC 10, which drew the line between disturbances that affect the community at large and those that primarily injure specific individuals. The Supreme Court had held in that case that every act of assault or injury to specific persons does not lead to public disorder, and that a mere disturbance of law and order is not necessarily sufficient for action under preventive detention law — there must be a disturbance that affects public order. The Bench also relied on Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 415, and Nenavath Bujji and Others v. State of Telangana and Others, (2024) 17 SCC 294, both of which affirmed the distinction between ‘public order’ and ‘law and order’ and held that a liberal meaning cannot be given to the expression ‘public order’.

Applying these principles, the Bench held that even if the averments in the grounds of detention were taken at face value, the activities of the detenu constituted offences under the IPC but had not disturbed the even tempo of social life in any manner. The detenu was a director of a company that entered into contracts with the complainants and wilfully breached those contracts. Only the financial interests of a set of people had been injured. There was no threat to public safety. The Bench described it as “ridiculous” to claim that such cases would disturb the even tempo of social life.

The Staleness of the Material

The Bench identified a second independent ground for quashing the order: the absence of a live and proximate link between the detenu's past conduct and the need to detain him.

Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 defines ‘acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order’ in Section 2(a) with reference to activities in which a Goonda “is” engaged or is making preparations to engage — language in the present and present continuous tense. The Bench relied on Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, (2023) 9 SCC 587, which catalogued the principle that a court must examine whether the detaining authority's satisfaction was arrived at bearing in mind the existence of a live and proximate link between the past conduct of the person and the imperative need to detain him, and whether the material relied upon is stale.

All three cases — the two adverse cases and the ground case — related to the same real estate project. The joint development agreement in the first adverse case was executed on 18 December 2014. The complaint in that case was lodged on 12 October 2023. In the second adverse case, the flat was booked on 20 January 2020 and the sale deed in favour of Kalpana Sharma was executed on 22 December 2021. In the ground case, the sale consideration was paid between 2016 and 2018 and the fraudulent sale deed was executed on 16 December 2021. The Bench found that the materials relied on by the detaining authority were stale and that there was no urgent or imperative need to detain the detenu.

The Officer Summoned — and Censured

Even on a cursory reading of the grounds of detention, the Bench formed the view that the order could not have been passed. The Bench had come across several other detention orders passed by the same officer and directed him to appear personally to explain his conduct.

Thiru Arun, IPS, appeared and submitted that he had merely discharged his official duties and that no motive should be attributed to him. He stated that in his 28 years of service he had taken tough action against criminals and that they had ganged up against him and launched a campaign on social media. He said that as a government servant he was not in a position to rebut those allegations.

The Bench noted that when the summons was issued, Thiru Arun was on compulsory wait, but on 26 May 2026 he had been appointed as Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The Bench observed that the post had historically been held by officers of exceptional calibre and integrity and that even a whiff of allegation had never been made against its earlier incumbents.

The Bench then set out the pattern of conduct it had observed. Savukku Shankar, a journalist who had levelled serious allegations against Thiru Arun IPS, was detained as a Goonda by the very same officer vide order dated 9 April 2026. That detention, challenged in H.C.P. No. 937 of 2026, was revoked by the State itself after the advisory board unanimously expressed the opinion that there was no sufficient cause for detention, and G.O.RT.No.2977 dated 19 May 2026 was issued to that effect. In a separate matter, a learned Single Judge, while granting relief in Crl.O.P.Nos. 31418 of 2024 and connected matters by order dated 13 February 2025, had recorded that the respondents had foisted a false case against a journalist named Varaaki with malafide intention. A Division Bench, while quashing a detention order in H.C.P. No. 2714 of 2025 by order dated 30 December 2025, had observed that preventive detention laws are draconian and that any callousness, motive, extraneous consideration, or attempt to settle political scores or silence dissenting voices, if established, should result in disciplinary proceedings against the detaining authority.

The Bench rejected the explanation offered by Thiru Arun IPS. It found that the impugned order had been deliberately passed. It observed that an officer with 28 years of experience who passes such an order must be taken to have done so with full knowledge of the law and the facts. The Bench noted that even before the court, Thiru Arun IPS did not appear to feel that he had passed a wrong order and strongly justified his conduct. The Bench expressed severe anguish and displeasure and formally censured Thiru Arun IPS for having passed the impugned detention order for extraneous reasons.

Outcome

The Division Bench quashed the detention order dated 22 September 2025 bearing D.O.No.719/BBCDEFGISSSV/2025 on two grounds: first, that the ground case and the adverse cases do not have the potential to disturb public order and involve no element of public order; and second, that the material relied upon by the detaining authority is stale and there is no live and proximate link with the detenu's past conduct. H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025 was allowed. The order was pronounced on 29 May 2026 and the court directed that order copies be issued the same day.