Exercise Power of Preventive Detention with Caution: Supreme Court Warns States

The Supreme Court stated on Monday that state governments must exercise the power of preventive detention with extreme caution, deliberation, and strict adherence to legal requirements. The Court noted that the use of this power directly impacts an individual's personal liberty, making it imperative to handle with care.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan, and Justice A.K. Singh made this observation during the hearing of an appeal filed by senior IPS officer A. Arun. The Court clarified that all public authorities must be guided by the law. In cases of preventive detention, the proper evaluation of facts and law becomes more critical as it directly affects a person's fundamental right to life and liberty.

In its judgement, the Court stated, "The facts and the applicable law must be carefully evaluated by the public authority. This matter holds special importance in cases of preventive detention, where the exercise of statutory power affects an individual's liberty. Therefore, such power must be exercised with extreme caution and in strict compliance with the requirements of the law."

The entire matter pertained to an appeal by senior IPS officer A. Arun, who had sought the removal of certain "adverse remarks" made against him by the Madras High Court in May. The Madras High Court had severely criticised Arun for invoking the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act against a real estate developer, Santosh Sharma.

At that time, a bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshmanarayanan had quashed the detention order. The High Court ruled that the allegations against Sharma related to disputes over the sale of apartments and alleged fraudulent registrations, which were insufficient to invoke preventive detention laws. The Court held that these were individual disputes and there was no likelihood of disturbing public order or the flow of social life.

While making strict remarks against A. Arun, the Madras High Court noted that he had repeatedly issued detention orders which were subsequently quashed by the courts. The High Court raised questions regarding the reliance on cases more than two years old and the use of preventive detention in matters unrelated to public order. The High Court had stated, "He must know that an order of preventive detention cannot be passed carelessly as it has serious implications for the liberty of the detained person."

In the Supreme Court, A. Arun admitted his mistake and expressed readiness to tender an unconditional apology. His counsel, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, argued that if these adverse remarks remained on record, it could seriously impact Arun's professional reputation and career.

A. Arun submitted an affidavit seeking an unconditional apology, which the Supreme Court took on record. The Court noted that Arun expressed regret for failing to apologise before the High Court and for failing to admit the mistake made in passing the detention order on September 22, 2025. Furthermore, Arun assured the Supreme Court that he would exercise greater care in the discharge of his official duties in the future.

The Supreme Court accepted his apology and directed the removal of the adverse remarks made in the Madras High Court's May judgement. However, the Court concluded by observing that an officer in a senior position in police administration is expected to understand the importance of the duties assigned to them and the responsibility associated with the exercise of statutory powers.