Madras High Court Censures DVAC Chief A Arun IPS For Passing ‘Reckless’ Preventive Detention Order Against Realtor

 

The Madras High Court strongly criticized A. Arun IPS, currently serving as the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and formerly the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, for issuing a preventive detention order against realtor Santhosh Sharma under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. While quashing the detention order, the Court observed that the order had been passed recklessly and for extraneous reasons, and formally censured the officer for his conduct.

The matter came before the Court through a habeas corpus petition filed by Sharma’s daughter challenging the legality of her father’s detention. The authorities had invoked preventive detention based on allegations that Sharma had cheated purchasers in relation to real estate transactions. According to the allegations, apartments had been sold to certain buyers and documents had subsequently been executed in favour of other individuals. Multiple criminal cases had been registered against him in connection with these allegations, and the authorities relied upon those cases to justify the detention order.

The petitioner argued that the allegations could be adequately addressed through ordinary criminal proceedings and that there was no justification for invoking the extraordinary provisions of preventive detention law. It was contended that the allegations concerned disputes arising out of property transactions and contractual arrangements and therefore did not involve issues affecting public order.

During the hearing, the Court expressed serious concern over the detention order and observed that the facts of the case had shocked its judicial conscience. In order to understand the circumstances in which the order had been passed, the Court directed A. Arun, who had signed the detention order while serving as Commissioner of Police, to appear before it.

The proceedings also involved issues relating to the service of court summons. The Court noted allegations that a court bailiff had been made to wait for nearly two hours while attempting to serve summons at the officer’s office. The Bench expressed displeasure regarding the incident and emphasized that court officials discharging official duties must be treated with due respect and courtesy.

After examining the materials on record, the High Court concluded that the allegations against Sharma did not justify preventive detention. The Court observed that the cases relied upon by the authorities related to disputes between private individuals concerning real estate transactions. According to the Bench, such disputes, even if they disclose criminal offences, do not automatically amount to activities affecting public order.

The Court emphasized the distinction between breaches of law affecting individual parties and conduct that disturbs public order. It observed that the allegations in the present case did not indicate any disruption of public peace or any threat to the normal functioning of society. The matters could be investigated and prosecuted through the ordinary criminal justice system without resorting to preventive detention.

The Bench described preventive detention as an extraordinary and severe measure that directly affects personal liberty. Such powers, the Court observed, must be exercised with extreme caution and only in cases where the statutory requirements are clearly satisfied. Preventive detention cannot be justified merely because several criminal cases have been registered against an individual.

The Court further noted that many of the criminal cases relied upon by the authorities related to incidents that had occurred several years earlier. It found no immediate or proximate connection between those allegations and any present necessity to detain Sharma preventively. According to the Court, the absence of a live and compelling need for detention undermined the basis of the order.

In particularly strong observations, the Bench noted that A. Arun was a highly experienced officer with nearly three decades of service. The Court observed that an officer of such seniority would have been fully aware of the legal distinction between ordinary criminal activity and conduct affecting public order. It remarked that the detention order could not be explained as a mere error of judgment or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The Court also observed that detention orders issued by the officer had repeatedly been set aside by courts in the past. It noted that despite this history, he continued to defend the order in question and did not appear to recognize any error in invoking preventive detention under the circumstances of the case.

According to the Court, the detention order appeared to have been issued for reasons that could not be justified on the basis of the material available on record. The Bench concluded that the invocation of preventive detention in the present case was wholly unwarranted and amounted to a misuse of an exceptional legal power.

The High Court therefore quashed the detention order issued against Santhosh Sharma. It directed that he be released from custody unless his detention was required in connection with any other case. At the same time, the Court formally censured A. Arun for issuing what it described as a reckless detention order and reiterated that preventive detention laws must be employed only in genuine cases involving threats to public order.

The judgment underscored the importance of safeguarding personal liberty and reaffirmed that extraordinary powers of preventive detention cannot be invoked casually or as a substitute for ordinary criminal prosecution. The Court stressed that such powers must remain confined to situations where public order is genuinely at risk and where detention is necessary to prevent future harm to society.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community