Apology accepted but no substitute for care: Supreme Court expunges High Court remarks against IPS officer
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh accept the unconditional apology of an IPS officer over a preventive detention order and expunge Madras High Court remarks, while leaving the quashing intact.
The Supreme Court on 2 November 2026 expunged adverse remarks that the Madras High Court made against an Indian Police Service officer who had ordered a person’s preventive detention. The officer, A. Arun, had apologised unconditionally before the Court.
A three-judge bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh accepted the apology, but added a warning. The judgment, written by Justice Nath, is marked reportable.
The High Court’s decision setting aside the detention order was not touched.
A police chief and a detention order
Arun now serves as Director of the Tamil Nadu Police Academy. At the relevant time he was Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
On 22 September 2025 he passed a detention order 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. He classified the detenue as a goonda.
Flats, forged papers and a fraud case
The order rested on Crime No. 178 of 2025, in which a complainant named Ravi alleged he had paid Rs 1,38,08,095 to M/s Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd. under a sale and construction agreement for an apartment.
The detenue and his wife were directors of the company. The complainant said the apartment was never handed over and the property was dealt with in favour of third parties and later mortgaged, on documents alleged to be forged.
The crime was registered on 29 August 2025 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The detenue and his wife were arrested on 1 September 2025 and remanded to judicial custody, and other cases on similar allegations were registered against them.
An Inspector of Police of Central Crime Branch-II then sent the commissioner a proposal for detention. On the material before him, Arun reached what the judgment calls a subjective satisfaction and passed the order.
The High Court sets it aside
The detenue’s daughter, Varsha Sharma, challenged the order in H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025 before the Madras High Court. The High Court allowed her petition and set aside the order in a judgment of 29 May 2026.
In that judgment it made adverse observations against the officer, in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23. The Supreme Court’s judgment does not reproduce what they said.
Arun came to the Supreme Court for one relief only: expunction of those remarks.
The apology before the Court
Senior Counsel Sidharth Luthra appeared for Arun. Additional Advocate General Prashanto Chandra Sen appeared for respondent Nos. 2 to 5, and Mr Vairawan A.S. for the first respondent.
Arun was present in Court. His counsel said he had realised his error and would tender an unconditional apology, and that the remarks could seriously damage his professional reputation and career.
An affidavit of unconditional apology was filed and taken on record. In it Arun expressed regret for not apologising before the High Court and for failing to accept the error in passing the detention order.
He said that, when the High Court summoned him, he ought to have accepted the error then. He apologised to the Supreme Court and to the High Court and promised greater care in his official work.
A caution on liberty
The bench noted the apology and the assurance. A public authority, it said, must exercise power with careful appreciation of facts and law, and this matters most in preventive detention, where the exercise of statutory power directly touches an individual’s liberty.
It said such power must be used with utmost circumspection and in strict conformity with the law. A senior police officer, the Court added, is expected to understand the weight of the duties and responsibility that come with statutory powers.
The bench said it trusted that his regret and assurance would show in his official functions from now on. It added a caveat that the tendering of an apology:
“cannot be regarded as a substitute for due care” (para 9)
Order
The Court accepted the apology and directed that the adverse remarks against Arun in paragraphs 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the High Court judgment of 29 May 2026 be expunged. It clarified that the order is confined to those remarks and does not affect the High Court’s decision setting aside the detention order.
The appeal is disposed of in those terms, and pending applications stand disposed of.