A.Arun vs Varsha Sharma

2026 INSC 1186
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.16725 of 2026)

A. ARUN ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VARSHA SHARMA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before us is an Officer of the Indian Police
Service (IPS), presently serving as the Director of the Tamil
Nadu Police Academy. The present appeal arises out of
certain adverse remarks made against him in the
judgment and final order dated 29th May 2026 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Chennai in
H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025.
3. At the relevant time, the appellant was serving as the
Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.1. The first respondent was the writ petitioner before the
High Court. Her father, who was the detenue in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.11.02
17:43:09 IST
Reason:
Crl.A.No.@SLP(Crl.)No.16725 of 2026 1

proceedings before the High Court, was detained under
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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982)
(hereinafter, “the Act of 1982”), having been classified
as a “Goonda” by the appellant.
3.2. The case which formed the basis of the detention order
arose out of Crime No. 178 of 2025, wherein one Ravi
was the complainant. It was alleged that the
complainant had entered into a sale and construction
agreement with M/s. Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the
purchase of an apartment and had paid a sum of
₹ 1,38,08,095/- towards the consideration.
3.3. The detenue and his wife were directors of the aforesaid
company. Despite the execution of the agreements and
payment of the consideration, the apartment was
allegedly not handed over to the complainant. It was
further alleged that the property was dealt with in
favour of third parties and subsequently mortgaged, on
the basis of documents alleged to be forged.
Accordingly, Crime No. 178 of 2025 was registered on
29th August 2025 for offences punishable under
Crl.A.No.@SLP(Crl.)No.16725 of 2026 2

Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”).
3.4. The detenue and his wife were arrested on 1st
September 2025 and remanded to judicial custody.
Other criminal cases were also registered against them
on similar allegations.
3.5. A proposal for detention under the Act of 1982 was
thereafter forwarded to the appellant by the Inspector of
Police, Central Crime Branch-II. Upon consideration of
the materials placed before him, the appellant arrived
at a subjective satisfaction and passed an order of
detention dated 22nd September 2025 under Section
3(1) of the Act of 1982, classifying the detenue as a
“Goonda”.
3.6. Aggrieved by the detention order, the first respondent
instituted H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025 before the High
Court. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside
the detention order. In the course of its judgment,
however, the High Court made certain adverse
observations against the appellant in paragraph nos. 6,
8, 10 and 19 to 23.
4. The appellant has approached this Court seeking
expunction of the aforesaid adverse remarks.
5. We have heard Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant; Mr. Prashanto
Crl.A.No.@SLP(Crl.)No.16725 of 2026 3

Chandra Sen, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 5; and Mr. Vairawan
A.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1.
6. During the course of hearing, the appellant was present
before this Court. Learned senior counsel appearing on his
behalf submitted that the appellant had realised his error
and was willing to tender an unconditional apology. It was
further submitted that the adverse remarks, if allowed to
remain on record, could have serious repercussions for the
appellant's professional reputation and career.
Accordingly, an affidavit tendering an unconditional
apology was filed by the appellant and taken on record.
7. We have perused the unconditional apology tendered by
the appellant. In the affidavit, the appellant expresses
regret for not having tendered an apology before the High
Court and for having failed to accept the error committed
by him in passing the detention order dated 22nd
September 2025. He further states that, when summoned
by the High Court, he ought to have accepted the error at
that stage. Having failed to do so, he now tenders his
unconditional apology to this Court as well as to the High
Court. He has also assured this Court that he would
exercise greater care in the discharge of his official
functions in the future.
Crl.A.No.@SLP(Crl.)No.16725 of 2026 4

8. We take note of the unconditional apology tendered by the
appellant, as well as the assurance furnished by him. The
exercise of power by a public authority must be guided by
a careful appreciation of the facts and the applicable law.
This assumes particular significance in matters of
preventive detention, where the exercise of statutory power
directly affects the liberty of an individual. Such power
must, therefore, be exercised with utmost circumspection
and in strict conformity with the requirements of law.
9. At the same time, we consider it appropriate to observe
that an officer holding a senior position in the police
administration is expected to appreciate the significance of
the duties entrusted to him and the responsibility that
accompanies the exercise of statutory powers. The
appellant's expression of regret and his assurance to
exercise greater care in the future are duly noted. We trust
that the same shall be reflected in the discharge of his
official functions hereafter. 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.
10. Having regard to the unconditional apology tendered by
the appellant, the assurance furnished by him, and the
circumstances of the present case, we accept the apology.
In these circumstances, the adverse remarks made against
Crl.A.No.@SLP(Crl.)No.16725 of 2026 5

the appellant in paragraph nos. 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of
the impugned judgment are directed to be expunged.
11. It is clarified that the present order is confined to the
adverse remarks made against the appellant and shall not
affect the decision of the High Court setting aside the
detention order.
12. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

……………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]



……………………………..J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]



………………………………..J.
[APARESH KUMAR SINGH]


NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 02, 2026

Crl.A.No.@SLP(Crl.)No.16725 of 2026 6