Apology Cannot Substitute for Due Care in Preventive Detention, Rules Supreme Court

  • Post published:
  • Post category:Supreme Court
  • Reading time:3 mins read

Apology Cannot Substitute for Due Care in Preventive Detention, Rules Supreme Court in A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma

Case: A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma & Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 1186
Date of Judgment: 02 November 2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Proceedings: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16725 of 2026

Court Observation

“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.”

Summary

The Supreme Court has accepted the unconditional apology of senior IPS officer A. Arun for an error in passing a preventive detention order, and directed that the adverse remarks made against him by the Madras High Court be expunged. The Court stressed that the power of preventive detention, which directly affects a person’s liberty, must be exercised with the utmost circumspection and in strict conformity with the law.

At the same time, the Court left untouched the Madras High Court’s decision quashing the detention itself. Expunging the remarks against the officer therefore does nothing to revive a detention order that had already been found unsustainable, and the cheating and forgery allegations underlying the original criminal case remain untested.

Key Holdings

  • Preventive detention powers must be exercised with great circumspection, because they directly affect the liberty of an individual.
  • An unconditional apology, coupled with an assurance of greater care in future, can justify expunging adverse remarks against an officer, even where the officer failed to apologise before the High Court.
  • An apology is no substitute for due care in the exercise of powers affecting a person’s liberty.
  • Expunging remarks against the detaining authority does not disturb the quashing of the detention order itself.

Directions Issued

  • The adverse remarks against the appellant in paragraph numbers 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the Madras High Court’s judgment are directed to be expunged.

Background

As Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, A. Arun passed a detention order dated 22 September 2025 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, classifying the father of the first respondent as a “Goonda”. The order arose from Crime No. 178 of 2025, registered on 29 August 2025 on a complaint alleging that over Rs 1.38 crore had been paid to a real estate company, of which the detenue and his wife were directors, for an apartment that was never handed over. The detenue’s daughter challenged the detention in H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025, and the Madras High Court set the detention aside by its judgment of 29 May 2026, while making adverse observations against the officer. He appealed against those remarks, tendering an unconditional apology.

Related Articles

Tags: , ,