The Madras High Court came down heavily on Tamil Nadu DVAC director and former Greater Chennai Police Commissioner A. Arun while hearing a habeas corpus petition challenging a Goondas Act detention order issued by him against Chennai-based realtor Santhosh Sharma. During the hearing on 27 May 2026, Justice GR Swaminathan remarked that the detention order was “atrocious” and said the court intended to make strong observations against the IPS officer.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justices GR Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan. The judges had earlier summoned Arun to appear before the court after observing that the detention order had “shocked the judicial conscience”, as reported in The Hindu.
Court Pulls Up Arun’s Office Over Delay In Receiving Summons
Before arguments on the merits of the habeas corpus petition could begin, the bench expressed anger over the treatment allegedly meted out to a court bailiff who had gone to serve summons on Arun.
Justice Swaminathan said the bailiff had reached Arun’s office at around 3:05 pm on the previous day but was allegedly made to wait there until approximately 5:15 pm. The visibly upset judge directed the concerned staff member responsible for making the bailiff wait to appear before the court immediately.
Justice G.R. Swaminathan of #MadrasHighCourt says, yesterday, a court bailiff, who went to serve summons on the DVAC director A. Arun, was made to wait in the latter’s office for two hours between 3:05 pm and 5:15 pm. The judge summons the police officer’s staff who made the…
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) May 27, 2026
Though Arun himself appeared before the court and Government Counsel (criminal side) R. John Sathyan attempted to make submissions, the bench initially refused to proceed until the concerned staff member appeared before it.
When the matter was taken up again later in the day, the staff member appeared before the bench. Justice Swaminathan questioned him over why the bailiff had been made to wait for nearly two hours merely to serve summons. The court also indicated that action could be initiated against the staff member over the incident.
Government Counsel John Sathyan submitted before the court that it had been a “mistake” and explained that Arun was in a meeting at that time and since the summons was addressed in his name, the staff may have delayed receiving it.
Government Counsel (criminal side) R. John Sathyan says it was a mistake. Justice Swaminathan now goes into the merits of the habeas corpus petition which has challenged the Goondas detention order issued by Mr. Arun. Judge says an atrocious order has been passed by the IPS…
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) May 27, 2026
The bench, however, appeared unconvinced. Justice Swaminathan reportedly referred to an earlier instance involving the Bombay High Court where contempt proceedings were initiated after disrespect was shown to a court bailiff.
“An Atrocious Order”: High Court’s Sharp Remarks Against Arun
After addressing the issue relating to the summons, the bench turned to the merits of the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order.
Justice Swaminathan observed in open court that “an atrocious order” had been passed by Arun and remarked that the court intended to make strong observations against him. He said the bench had specifically summoned Arun because it did not want to make adverse remarks in his absence.
The judge also made pointed remarks regarding the office currently held by Arun. Justice Swaminathan said the post of Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had once been occupied by “stalwarts” and remarked that it was now occupied by Arun.
The matter was subsequently passed over again and later taken up for detailed hearing.
Judges Question Use Of Goondas Act Against Realtor
During the hearing, the judges repeatedly questioned whether invoking the Goondas Act against a realtor accused in cheating and forgery cases could legally be justified.
Justice Lakshminarayanan observed that while examining preventive detention orders, courts were dealing directly with the liberty of citizens. He stated that even if a person had committed criminal offences, the proper course was to proceed under regular criminal law rather than invoke preventive detention legislation without justification.
Justice Swaminathan also noted that the court had been examining Arun’s “track record” in invoking preventive detention laws. Arun, defending himself before the court, submitted that during his 28 years of service there had been no misuse of official position.
Justice Swaminathan says, his Bench intends to pass orders on the HCP on Friday. He asks whether Mr. Arun wants to say something. Mr. Arun says, the detainee (a realtor) had been accused of forging signatures of the complainant. Justice Swaminathan says, the question is whether…
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) May 27, 2026
Arun attempted to justify the detention order by stating that the detainee had been accused of forging signatures of the complainant. However, Justice Swaminathan responded that the central issue before the court was whether invocation of the Goondas Act itself was justified in the case.
The judges later reserved orders on the habeas corpus petition and indicated that orders would likely be pronounced on Friday.
Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan of #MadrasHighCourt reserve orders on a habeas corpus petition filed by the daughter of a realtor challenging the Goondas detention order passed against her father by former Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police A. Arun, now…
— Mohamed Imranullah S (@imranhindu) May 27, 2026
Background: High Court Had Earlier Said Order “Shocked Judicial Conscience”
The controversy dates back to 20 May 2026, when the Madras High Court first sharply criticised the detention order passed by Arun under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act against realtor Santhosh Sharma of Lokaa Developers.
The detention order had arisen from a complaint filed by S. Poornajothi, wife of DMDK Rajya Sabha MP L. K. Sudhish. She accused Sharma of cheating her of approximately ₹42.94 crore in connection with a joint development agreement involving the construction of a high-rise residential complex called “M One” at Madhavaram in Chennai.
According to the complaint, Poornajothi and Sudhish had entered into an agreement with Lokaa Developers for construction of 234 apartments on 2.10 acres of land. Out of the project, 78 flats were allegedly earmarked for the couple. However, Poornajothi accused Sharma of forging signatures and illegally selling 48 flats that were meant to be allotted to her.
In addition to Poornajothi’s complaint, some flat buyers had also lodged cheating complaints against the developer, leading to multiple criminal cases being registered by the Central Crime Branch. Sharma, his wife Kalpana Sharma and an employee named Madhavarajan were arrested in connection with some of those cases.
However, Arun subsequently invoked the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, commonly referred to as the Goondas Act, against Sharma alone.
Grounds Of Detention Under Scrutiny
The High Court had specifically questioned the reasoning contained in the detention order signed by Arun on 22 September 2025.
The grounds of detention stated that Sharma had “created scare and feeling of insecurity” among the general public looking to purchase houses and had thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The detention order further claimed that if Sharma were released on bail, he would continue engaging in such activities and therefore preventive detention was necessary because ordinary criminal law would not have the desired effect.
The judges had earlier questioned how disputes arising out of a real estate transaction and allegations of cheating could suddenly become issues affecting “public order” serious enough to justify branding a realtor as a “goonda.”
The habeas corpus petition challenging the detention order was filed by Sharma’s daughter, Varsha Sharma.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
