Apology Is No Substitute for Due Care in Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Against IPS Officer

As Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, the appellant passed a detention order on 22.09.2025 under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, classifying the detenue as a ‘Goonda’ (paras 3, 3.5). It rested on a crime registered on 29.08.2025 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, alleging that a buyer who paid ₹1,38,08,095 to a developer company, of which the detenue and his wife were directors, never got the apartment, and that the property was dealt with and mortgaged on documents alleged to be forged (paras 3.2-3.3). On a petition by the detenue's daughter, the High Court set the detention aside on 29.05.2026 but made adverse observations against the appellant (paras 2, 3.1, 3.6).

The appellant was present in Court, and his affidavit tendering an unconditional apology was taken on record (para 6). In it he regretted not apologising before the High Court and failing to accept the error he committed in passing the detention order, accepted that he ought to have done so when the High Court summoned him, apologised to both Courts, and assured greater care in his official functions (para 7). The Court noted the apology and assurance, but stressed that a public authority must exercise power on a careful appreciation of the facts and the applicable law; this matters especially in preventive detention, which directly affects an individual's liberty and must be used with utmost circumspection and in strict conformity with law (para 8). A senior police officer is expected to appreciate the responsibility that accompanies statutory powers; the Court trusted that his regret would be reflected in his work and cautioned that an apology cannot substitute for due care where a person's liberty is affected (para 9). Having regard to the apology, the assurance and the circumstances, it accepted the apology and directed the remarks to be expunged (para 10).