Tendering Apology No Substitute For Due Care: Supreme Court While Expunging Remarks By High Court Against IPS Officer

The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by an Officer of the Indian Police Service (IPS), presently serving as the Director of the Tamil Nadu Police Academy. The appeal emanated from certain adverse remarks made against him in the judgment passed by the Madras High Court.

The 3-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh held, “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 appellant's expression of regret and his assurance to exercise greater care in the future are duly noted. We trust that the same shall be reflected in the discharge of his official functions hereafter. We also caution that the tendering of an apology cannot be regarded as a substitute for due care in the exercise of powers affecting the liberty of a person.”

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was serving as the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai when the matter came to light. 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) having been classified as a “Goonda” by the appellant. The case on the basis of which detention order was passed was 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. 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. A case was registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The detenue and his wife were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Other criminal cases were also registered against them on similar allegations. An order of detention under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1982, classifying the detenue as a “Goonda” was passed. Aggrieved by the detention order, the first respondent instituted a Petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the detention order. In the course of its judgment, the High Court made certain adverse observations against the appellant. The appellant had approached the Court seeking expunction of the aforesaid adverse remarks.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant, the Bench noted that the appellant expressed 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. The Bench took note of his statement that, when summoned by the High Court, he ought to have accepted the error at that stage. Having failed to do so, he tendered his unconditional apology to the Apex Court as well as to the High Court. He has also assured the Court that he would exercise greater care in the discharge of his official functions in the future.

The Bench thus stated, “We take note of the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant, as well as the assurance furnished by him. The exercise of power by a 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.”

Considering the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant, the assurance furnished by him, and the circumstances of the case, the Bench accepted the appellant’s apology.

The Bench thus disposed of the Petition by directing, “In these circumstances, the adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraph nos. 6, 8, 10 and 19 to 23 of the impugned judgment are directed to be expunged.”

Cause Title: A. Arun v. Varsha Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1186)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, AOR Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocates Shubham Dubey, Vivek Kr. Tripathi, Jasleen Kaur, Karan Lahiri, Meeran Maqbool

Respondent: Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, AOR Vairawan A., AOR Karunakaran, Advocate Akhil Krishnan A.

Click here to read/download Judgment