The Madras High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to Tamil Nadu’s Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, A Arun IPS, accusing him of repeatedly resorting to preventive detention orders in a manner that failed to meet legal standards.
The criticism came while a Division Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan set aside a detention order issued against Chennai-based builder Santhosh Sharma under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The judges concluded that the order could not withstand judicial scrutiny and went a step further by censuring the officer responsible for issuing it.
In their order dated May 29, the judges observed that preventive detention directly impacts an individual’s liberty and therefore cannot be exercised casually. According to the Bench, the impugned order appeared to have been passed for reasons unrelated to the requirements of law.
The Court noted that its concern was not confined to a single case. It remarked that several detention orders signed by Arun in the past had landed before the High Court and were subsequently struck down. This pattern, the Bench said, compelled it to make unusually strong observations.
At the time the detention order was issued in September 2025, Arun was serving as Chennai’s Police Commissioner. He was later appointed Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption earlier this week.
While examining the case, the judges found that even a basic reading of the detention records raised serious questions about the validity of the action taken. Given the recurring nature of similar challenges involving the same officer, the Court directed Arun to appear personally.
Appearing before the Bench, Arun maintained that he had merely discharged his official responsibilities. He argued that no ulterior motive should be attributed to his actions and pointed out that he had spent nearly three decades taking action against hardened criminals. He also referred to online campaigns and criticism directed against him, stating that government service limited his ability to publicly respond.
The Court, however, remained unconvinced. It observed that an officer with 28 years of experience, particularly one recruited directly into the IPS, could not claim unfamiliarity with the legal limits governing preventive detention.
According to the judges, the circumstances suggested that the order had been passed with full awareness of both the law and the facts involved. They expressly rejected the explanation offered by the officer.
The Bench also commented on Arun’s elevation as head of the anti-corruption watchdog. Stressing the importance of the office, it recalled that the position had previously been occupied by officers known for exceptional integrity and professional standing. The judges remarked that corruption remains one of society’s most damaging problems and that the institution tasked with combating it must inspire unquestionable public confidence.
The order additionally referred to controversies surrounding Arun in other proceedings. The Court noted that YouTuber Savukku Shankar had earlier made serious allegations against him and had subsequently been detained under the Goondas Act through an order issued by Arun himself. That detention was later withdrawn after an advisory board unanimously concluded there was insufficient basis to justify it.
The Bench also cited another matter involving journalist Varaaki, where courts had criticised the police for allegedly initiating false cases with mala fide intent.
As for the present dispute, the judges clarified that Santhosh Sharma and his company still face criminal prosecution over allegations that flat buyers were cheated in a Chennai housing project. The Court said those accusations could be pursued through the ordinary criminal process. However, it found no legal basis for keeping the preventive detention order in force.
Consequently, the habeas corpus petition filed by Sharma’s daughter, Varsha Sharma, was allowed and the detention order was quashed.
