Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 1186 REPORTABLE
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.
[VIKRAM NATH]
……………………………..J.
[R. MAHADEVAN]
………………………………..J.
[APARESH KUMAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 02, 2026
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 Signature Not Verified High Court. Her father, who was the detenue in the SONIA BHASIN Date: 2026.11.02 Reason: 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 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
