The Madras High Court on Wednesday (May 20, 2026) expressed shock over a preventive detention order issued by former Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police A. Arun under the Goondas Act and summoned him to the court on May 27, 2026, to offer his explanation.

A summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan said, the preventive detention order issued against real estate developer Santhosh Sharma, facing a criminal case at the instance of DMDK Rajya Sabha member L.K. Sudhish’s wife S. Poornajothi, “shocks our conscience.”

The judges wondered how criminal cases registered against Mr. Sharma of Lokaa Developers, with respect to the construction of a high-rise residential complex ‘M One’ on a parcel of land jointly owned by Mr. Sudhish and his wife at Madhavaram in Chennai, could become a reason to brand him a ‘goonda.’

They also wanted to know how public order had been affected, necessitating the invocation of the preventive detention law against a real estate developer just because there was a dispute between him and the land owners, as well as some of the purchasers of the flats.

What is the case about?

Mr. Arun had passed the detention order on September 22, 2025, on the basis of a complaint lodged by Ms. Poornajothi who had accused the real estate developer of having cheated her to the tune of ₹42.94 crore by selling 48 apartments that were actually allotted to her.

The complainant had claimed to have entered into a joint development agreement with Lokaa Developers (previously Style One Properties) for constructing 234 apartments on 2.10 acres of land. As per the agreement, a total of 78 flats should have been allotted to Ms. Poornajothi and her husband.

However, she alleged the developer had forged certain signatures and sold 48 of the 78 flats allotted to her. Similarly, a couple of the flat purchasers, too, had lodged cheating complaints against the developer, leading to the registration of multiple criminal cases by the Central Crime Branch.

The police had arrested the real estate developer, his wife Kalpana Sharma, and employee Madhavarajan in two of those cases, and invoked the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act of 1982 against Mr. Sharma alone.

The grounds of detention signed by then Commissioner of Police Mr. Arun read: “Thiru santhosh Sharma had created scare and feeling of insecurity not only in the minds of the general public who search genuine construction companies for buying house and make them to lose hope in purchasing houses, but the public who already possess house/land, which would affect economy of the society and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.”

The grounds went on to read: “If he comes out on bail, he will further indulge in such activities in future and therefore, there is a compelling necessity to pass an order of detention with a view to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities in future. Further recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indurging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance public order. Based on the above materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the above said Thiru Santhosh Sharma is a ‘Goonda’ and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future.”

Mr. Sharma’s daughter Varsha Sharma had filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention order. The judges directed the detaining authority to be present in the court on May 27 to explain the circumstances under which such an order was issued.