While quashing a detention order passed against a realtor where the order did not have a live and proximate link with the detenu's conduct, the Madras High Court has censured IPS Officer A Arun for passing such reckless orders. Expressing aguish, the Bench stated that 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 writ petitioner's father Thiru Santhosh Sharma was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda” vide an order passed by the then Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. The writ petition was filed challenging the same.

The Single Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan held, “Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the impugned detention order ought not to have been passed in the first instance. We express our severe anguish and displeasure. We reject the explanation given by Thiru Arun IPS., The impugned order has been deliberately passed. We would normally not make such remark. But we are constrained to do so because Thiru Arun IPS is habituated to issuing such orders, most of which have come to the notice of this Court and quashed. Even before us, he did not appear to feel that he had passed a wrong order. He strongly justified his conduct. 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 detention order has been passed for extraneous reasons. We censure Thiru Arun IPS., for having passed the impugned detention order.”

Advocate Sunny Sheen represented the Petitioner while State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The detenu came under adverse notice in a criminal case which led to the passing of the detention order. The defacto complainant, Ravi, entered into a sale and construction agreement with M/s.Lokaa Developers Pvt. Ltd. had booked a triple bedroom apartment. The de facto complainant paid a sum of Rs 1,38,08,095 to the builder/developer. The detenu and his wife were Directors in the said company. Agreements were signed and the sale consideration was paid in instalments. The construction agreement and sale deed were executed by one Ganesan on behalf of the developer, but the apartment was not handed over to Ravi. Instead, one Madhavarajan, the authorised signatory of the company, executed a construction agreement and a sale deed in favour of Kalpana Sharma, who mortgaged the said property with M/s.LIC Housing Finance Limited.

It was the case of the complainant that, to cheat him, the documents were forged, and property was registered in favour of Kalpana Sharma. In the second adverse case, a flat was booked, a construction agreement was executed, and a consideration of Rs 74,09,400 was paid by Thiyagachitran. However, the sale deed in respect of the Flat was executed in favour of Kalpana Sharma. The investigating officer came to know that the detenu and his wife had already been arrested in connection with the adverse case and remanded to judicial custody. They were formally arrested. The detaining authority was satisfied that the detenue had committed crimes and that, with an intention to cheat the complainant, the detenu had forged documents and executed a forged sale deed in favour of his wife and subsequently raised funds by mortgaging the same with LIC Housing Finance Limited. It was in such circumstances that the detention order came to be passed.

Arguments

Thiru. Arun, IPS, who passed the detention order, submitted that he had merely discharged his official duties and no motive should be attributed to him. He claimed that in his 28 years of service, he had taken tough action against criminals and scoundrels and that they had now ganged up against him and launched a vicious campaign on social media.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the sequence of events, the Bench noted that the materials relied on by the detaining authority were stale and there was no live and proximate link with the detenu's past conduct. “In other words, there was no urgent or imperative need to detain the detenu”, it added.

Considering that the detaining authority knew fully well that the case on hand did not fall within the category of public order, the Bench stated, “He also knew that he was placing reliance on events that had taken place not less than two years earlier. The detaining authority is not a novice. He is a direct recruit to I.P.S. He has served in various capacities. If with 28 years of experience such an order can be passed, it would only mean that it was done deliberately and with full knowledge of law and the facts involved.”

Holding that the impugned detention order ought not to have been passed in the first instance and expressing severe anguish and displeasure, the Bench rejected the explanation given by the IPS Officer.

Considering that the detention order did not have a live and proximate link with the detenu's conduct and that there was no element of public order involved, the Bench quashed the impugned order of detention.

Cause Title: Varsha Sharma v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home and Prohibition (Case No.: H.C.P.No.2066 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Sunny Sheen, R.Arthi

Respondent: State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, Advocate C.R.Malarvannan

Click here to read/download Order


Madras High CourtJustice G.R. Swaminathan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.