Madras HC censures DVAC chief A Arun IPS for reckless preventive detention orders

The Madras High Court has censured Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) chief A Arun IPS for having habitually issued reckless preventive detention orders, many of which were eventually quashed by the Court [Varsha Sharma Vs Additional Chief Secretary].

A Bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made the observation while quashing a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act by Arun against a Chennai-based builder named Santhosh Sharma.

"He (Arun) 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," the Court's May 29 order said.

The Court expressed severe anguish and displeasure over the detention order in the present case as well, opining that it should have been passed in the first place.

It rejected Arun's justifications as well, adding that the detention order was passed "deliberately." The Court said that it would normally not have made such strong remarks.

"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," it went on to observe.

Arun had passed the detention order in focus on September 22, 2025, when he was serving as Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. He was appointed the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption on May 26 this year. The detention order was eventually challenged before the High Court.

The Court said that on a cursory reading of the grounds of detention, it was clear that the order could not have been passed. Since the Bench had come across quite a few cases questioning the validity of detention orders passed by the same officer, it directed Arun to appear personally before the Court.

Arun appeared and submitted that he had merely discharged his official duties. He urged the Bench not to attribute any motive to him.

He also told the Court that in his 28 years of service, he had taken tough action against criminals and “scoundrels,” who had now ganged up against him and launched a vicious campaign on social media. He lamented that as a government servant, he was not in a position to rebut such allegations.

The Court was not persuaded.

It noted that Arun was not a novice, but a direct recruit IPS officer with 28 years of service. He had served in various capacities and was expected to know the limits of preventive detention law.

“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,” the Bench said.

The Court expressly rejected Arun’s explanation.

The Bench also referred to Arun’s recent appointment as DVAC chief. It said that when the Court had summoned him, Arun was on compulsory wait. On May 26, he was appointed Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

The Court observed that the post had earlier been held by officers of exceptional calibre and integrity such as CV Narasimhan and CL Ramakrishnan.

"Corruption is a major social evil and it is eating into the vitals of our society. Just as Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion, the post of Director, V&AC should be headed by professionals of sterling reputation,” the Court added.

The Bench also referred to other cases involving Arun. It noted that YouTuber Savukku Shankar had levelled serious allegations against Arun and had been detained as a Goonda by the same officer. That detention was later revoked by the State after the advisory board unanimously found that there was no sufficient cause for detention.

The Court further referred to proceedings involving journalist Varaaki, where strictures had been passed against the police for foisting false cases with mala fide intention.

In the present case, Santhosh Sharma had been detained in connection with allegations of cheating flat buyers in a Chennai real estate project. The Court said he and his company appeared to have defrauded the complainants and were rightly being prosecuted. However, it found no reason to sustain the preventive detention order passed against him.

The habeas corpus petition filed by Sharma’s daughter Varsha Sharma was, therefore, allowed, and the detention order was quashed.

Advocate Sunny Sheen appeared for Varsha Sharma.

State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, assisted by Advocate C R Malarvannan, appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]