Madras High Court Censures IPS Officer for Reckless Detention Order
The Madras High Court on Friday (May 29th), censured A Arun, the former Commissioner of Police and current Chief of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, for passing a detention order against a real estate developer in an alleged fraud case.
While quashing the detention order, a division bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the detention order was passed for extraneous reasons. The court noted that Arun had a habit of passing such orders, which were ultimately quashed by the court. The bench emphasized that preventive detention orders should not be issued recklessly, as they have serious implications on the detenu's liberty.
The court stated, “The impugned order has been deliberately passed. We would normally not make such remarks. But we are constrained to do so because Thiru Arun IPS is habituated to issuing such orders, most of which have come to the notice of this Court and quashed. Even before us, he did not appear to feel that he had passed a wrong order. He strongly justified his conduct. He ought to be aware that a preventive detention order cannot be passed recklessly as it has serious implications on the detenu's liberty. The detention order has been passed for extraneous reasons. We censure Thiru Arun IPS for having passed the impugned detention order.”
The matter pertains to a habeas corpus plea challenging the detention of a real estate developer, Santosh Sharma, under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. Sharma was accused of selling multiple apartments to purchasers and making double documents in the name of other accused persons. Sharma's daughter filed the plea, arguing that the pending cases against Sharma could have been dealt with under ordinary law and that there was no necessity to invoke the provisions of preventive detention. The plea contended that even if the allegations against Sharma were true, the dispute was a private one of a civil and criminal nature and did not threaten public order.
When the matter first came up before the court, the bench expressed shock at the detention order, stating that it had shocked the court’s judicial conscience. The court summoned A Arun, then Commissioner of Police, who had passed the detention order. It is noteworthy that Arun has now been appointed as the Chief of the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
On Wednesday (May 27th), the court expressed displeasure at the manner in which the court bailiff was made to wait for almost two hours at the IPS officer's office to serve the court summons. The court ordered the office staff responsible for the delay to appear before the bench and asked the IPS officer to wait in court until then. When the staff appeared, the bench censured him and stated that the court would take action. The court also cited an instance where the Bombay High Court had initiated contempt proceedings against an office staff member who disrespected a court bailiff.
In its order quashing the detention, the court noted that while Sharma had willfully breached terms of contract, his actions did not pose a threat to public safety. The court observed that such cases were registered routinely across the state and that it would be ridiculous to claim they would disturb the tempo of social life. The court stated, “Cases such as the one on hand are registered routinely all over the State. We are more than satisfied that the ground case as well as the adverse cases do not have the potential to disturb public order. It is ridiculous to claim that they will disturb the even tempo of social life. There is absolutely no warrant for invoking the draconian law of preventive detention for such cases.”
The court also noted that the cases in question were between 2020 and 2023 and had no live or proximate link with the detenu's past conduct. The court concluded that there was no urgent or imperative need to detain Sharma. The court remarked that Arun, a direct recruit IPS officer with 28 years of service, should have known that the cases did not fall under the category of public order. The court held that Arun had deliberately passed the order, stating, “The detaining authority knew fully well that the case on hand does not fall within the category of public order. He also knew that he was placing reliance on events that had taken place not less than two years earlier. The detaining authority is not a novice. He is a direct recruit to I.P.S. He has served in various capacities. If with 28 years of experience such an order can be passed, it would only mean that it was done deliberately and with full knowledge of the law and the facts involved.”
The court also cited previous instances where Arun’s detention orders, such as those against journalists Savukku Shankar and Varaaki, were ultimately quashed by the court. The court emphasized that this was not the first time the detaining authority had come under the court's scrutiny.
The case, titled Varsha Sharma v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others (HCP 2066 of 2025), was represented by Mr. Sunny Sheen for Ms. R. Arthi. The respondents were represented by Mr. John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor, assisted by C.R. Malarvannan.
