Madras High Court Censures Former Chennai Police Commissioner for Misuse of Preventive Detention

The Madras High Court has censured former Chennai Police Commissioner and present Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) A. Arun IPS while quashing a preventive detention order against realtor Santhosh Sharma under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The court held that the detention was passed for 'extraneous reasons' and did not involve any threat to public order.

Answering the central issue before it, the division bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan held that even if the allegations against Sharma were accepted in their entirety, they would at best disclose offences under the Indian Penal Code and not justify the invocation of the draconian preventive detention law.

The court went a step further and openly censured Arun IPS, observing that he was 'habituated' to issuing such detention orders, many of which had later been quashed by courts. The observations came while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by Varsha Sharma challenging the September 22, 2025 detention order passed against her father Santhosh Sharma, who had been detained as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982.

According to the prosecution, Sharma and his wife, who were directors of Lokaa Developers Pvt Ltd, were involved in multiple cases relating to alleged property fraud, cheating, forgery, and breach of trust in connection with a housing project in Chennai. The authorities relied on two adverse cases and one ground case alleging that apartments booked by purchasers were subsequently transferred to Sharma's wife and mortgaged for loans.

The court emphatically answered the question of whether the alleged real estate fraud affected public order in the negative. The bench observed that preventive detention cannot be justified merely because criminal offences are alleged. Referring to settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the judges reiterated that there is a crucial distinction between 'law and order' and 'public order', and only activities affecting society at large can attract preventive detention.

The allegations against Sharma, the court noted, arose out of transactions involving a specific real estate project and affected only identifiable complainants who allegedly suffered financial losses. Such disputes may warrant prosecution before criminal courts but cannot be elevated into threats to public tranquillity. The bench observed that there was 'absolutely no warrant' for invoking preventive detention in such cases and described as 'ridiculous' the claim that the alleged acts could disturb the even tempo of social life.

Apart from finding an absence of public order concerns, the court held that the materials relied upon by the detaining authority were stale. The judges noted that most of the transactions and agreements relied upon by the police dated back to periods between 2014 and 2023. In preventive detention law, there must be a live and proximate nexus between past conduct and the present need to detain a person. In Sharma's case, the court found no such urgency or compelling necessity.

Significantly, the bench had summoned Arun IPS in person during the proceedings. While the officer defended the detention order and stated that he had merely discharged his official duty, the court rejected the explanation. It observed that an officer with nearly three decades of service could not have been unaware of the settled legal principles governing preventive detention.

The court also referred to previous instances where detention orders issued by Arun IPS had come under judicial scrutiny, including the detention of political commentator Savukku Shankar, which was ultimately revoked after the Advisory Board found insufficient grounds for detention. Expressing 'severe anguish and displeasure', the bench held that the impugned detention order had been deliberately passed despite the absence of legal justification. It remarked that Arun IPS appeared unwilling to acknowledge any error and had strongly defended the detention even before the court. Consequently, the judges censured him and held that preventive detention powers cannot be exercised recklessly because they directly impact personal liberty.

'On 26.05.2026, he (Thiru Arun IPC) had been appointed as Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, a post held by persons of exceptional calibre and integrity such as Shri.C.V.Narasimhan and Shri.C.L.Ramakrishnan. Even a whiff of allegation was never made against them during their entire career. Corruption is a major social evil and it is eating into the vitals of our society. Just as Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion, the post of Director, V&AC should be headed by professionals of sterling reputation,' the court remarked.

Holding that there was neither any element of public order involved nor any live link between the alleged conduct and the necessity for detention, the Madras High Court quashed the detention order and allowed the habeas corpus petition.