The Supreme Court on Monday said the State must exercise preventive detention powers, given their direct impact on personal liberty, with utmost caution, circumspection and in strict conformity with the requirements of law.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, R Mahadevan, and AK Singh said all public authorities must anyway be guided by the law and that such appreciation of facts and the law assumed greater significance in matters of preventive detention since it directly affects a person’s fundamental right to life and liberty.
“The 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,” the Court said.
The bench made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by senior IPS officer A Arun, seeking to expunge certain “adverse remarks” made against him by the Madras high court in May this year.
Also Read | Marital dispute cannot become ground to seek abortion, says Supreme Court
{{/usCountry}}Also Read | Marital dispute cannot become ground to seek abortion, says Supreme Court
{{/usCountry}}In such judgement, the high court had strongly censured Arun for invoking the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act against a real estate developer, one Santhosh Sharma.
At the time, a bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan had quashed the detention order, holding that the allegations against Sharma, which pertained to disputes over the sale of apartments and alleged fraudulent registrations, did not warrant the invocation of preventive detention laws. The Court had held that the cases involved disputes between individuals and did not have the potential to disturb public order or the even tempo of social life.
The high court made particularly strong observations against Arun, noting that he had repeatedly issued detention orders that courts subsequently quashed. It also questioned his reliance on cases that were more than two years old and his justification for invoking preventive detention in a matter that did not concern public order.
Also Read | Marital dispute cannot become ground to seek abortion, says Supreme Court
“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 high court had said at the time.
Arun told the Supreme Court that he had realised his error and that he was willing to tender an unconditional apology.
His counsel, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, told the Court that if the adverse remarks were allowed to remain on record, they could have “serious repercussions for the appellant’s (Arun’s) professional reputation and career.”
Arun also submitted an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and the Supreme Court took it on record.
“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,” SC said.
It also recorded that Arun had assured the Court that he was going to exercise greater care in the discharge of his official functions in the future.
Also Read | Supreme Court allows bursting of green firecrackers in Delhi on November 7-8; restores ban thereafter
It accepted Arun’s apology and directed that the adverse remarks made against him by the High Court in the May judgement be expunged.
“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 SC said.