1. A senior police officer seeks expunction of adverse remarks made by the High Court in a judgment setting aside a detention order passed under a state preventive detention statute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, R. MAHADEVAN, APARESH KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
A. Arun – Appellant
Versus
Varsha Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 5174 of 2026 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No. 16725 of 2026)
Decided On : 02-11-2026
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Preventive Detention – Officer holding senior position in police administration is expected to appreciate significance of duties entrusted to him and responsibility that accompanies exercise of statutory powers.(2) Tendering of apology cannot be regarded as a substitute for due care in exercise of powers affecting liberty of a person.
Subject
Criminal Law - Preventive Detention
Act Referred
Headnote
Preventive Detention – Reversal – Order of detention set aside by High Court, while making certain adverse observations against appellant Police Officer – Unconditional apology tendered by appellant – Exercise of power by a public authority must be guided by careful appreciation of facts and applicable law – This assumes particular significance in matters of preventive detention, where exercise of statutory power directly affects liberty of an individual – Appellant's expression of regret and his assurance to exercise greater care in future shall be reflected in discharge of his official functions hereafter – Tendering of apology cannot be regarded as a substitute for due care in exercise of powers affecting liberty of a person – Apology accepted and adverse remarks made against appellant in impugned judgment directed to be expunged. [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 – Section 3(1)] (Paras 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is an Officer of Indian Police Service (IPS), presently serving as Director of Tamil Nadu Police Academy. Present appeal arises out of certain adverse remarks made against him in the judgment and final order dated 29th May 2026 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras at Chennai in H.C.P. No. 2066 of 2025.
Findings of Court:
Present order is confined to adverse remarks made against appellant and shall not affect decision of High Court setting aside detention order.
Issues: Whether the adverse remarks made by the High Court against a senior police officer in a judgment setting aside a detention order should be expunged upon the tendering of an unconditional apology.
Ratio Decidendi: While the exercise of statutory power affecting liberty requires utmost circumspection and an apology is not a substitute for due care, an unconditional apology and assurance of future diligence can be grounds for expunging adverse remarks made against a public official.
Result : Appeal disposed of with observations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi- 2441, AOR Mr. Shubham Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kr. Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Adv. Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vairawan A.s- 3408, AOR Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran- 3845, AOR Mr. Akhil Krishnan A., Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi- 2441, AOR Mr. Shubham Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kr. Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Adv. Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv. Mr. Meeran Maqbool, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vairawan A.s- 3408, AOR Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran- 3845, AOR Mr. Akhil Krishnan A., Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The appellant requested the removal of adverse remarks, citing an unconditional apology and the potential negative impact on his professional reputation and career. (Para 6 )
3. Public authorities exercising preventive detention powers must act with utmost circumspection and strict adherence to law, as these powers directly infringe upon individual liberty. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. An unconditional apology and assurance of future care in exercising statutory powers may justify expunction of adverse remarks without affecting the validity of the underlying order. (Para 7 , 10 )
5. The court accepted the unconditional apology and directed that the adverse remarks against the appellant in the impugned judgment be expunged. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. What is the standard of care required for officers exercising powers of preventive detention?
Preventive detention involves statutory power that directly affects individual liberty; therefore, it must be exercised with the utmost circumspection and in strict conformity with the requirements of the law. (Para 8 )
7. Can an unconditional apology provided to an appellate court warrant the expunction of adverse remarks made by a lower court?
Yes, if an officer acknowledges an error in exercising their official functions and demonstrates a genuine commitment to future compliance, the appellate court may accept such an apology to order the expunction of adverse remarks. (Para 7 , 10 )
8. Does the expunction of adverse remarks against an official affect the merits of the previous judicial order setting aside a detention?
No, an order expunging adverse remarks made during the proceedings is confined solely to those remarks and does not invalidate or affect the final judgment passed by the competent court regarding the legality of the detention. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT
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 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 Rs.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 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 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
