The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by YouTuber Savukku Shankar seeking a court-monitored CBI investigation against Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) Director A. Arun, IPS, holding that the petition was driven by personal hostility rather than genuine public interest.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan ruled that the petitioner failed to establish the bona fides required for invoking the Court’s PIL jurisdiction. The Bench observed that the materials placed before it revealed an existing adversarial relationship between Shankar and the senior police officer.
Emphasising the purpose of public interest litigation, the Court observed that the mechanism cannot be transformed into a means of pursuing private disputes or personal grievances.
Shankar had approached the High Court requesting that the Central Bureau of Investigation conduct an independent inquiry into Arun’s functioning as the head of the State’s anti-corruption agency.
The petition relied heavily on observations made by another Division Bench in an earlier case concerning a preventive detention order. In that matter, the Court had criticised Arun’s role, stating that the detention order appeared to have been passed for extraneous reasons and noting that similar orders issued by him had repeatedly been set aside.
Using those findings, Shankar argued that Arun’s continuation as DVAC Director had eroded public confidence and contended that the State had failed to act despite representations, making an investigation by an outside agency necessary.
The High Court, however, found that the very judgment cited by the petitioner also recorded that Shankar had previously levelled serious allegations against Arun, including claims regarding the accumulation of disproportionate wealth. According to the Bench, these circumstances reflected a clear backdrop of personal conflict between the parties.
The judges cautioned against misuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction available under Article 226 of the Constitution, observing that litigants cannot cloak personal vendettas in the language of public interest.
Reiterating the foundational principles governing PILs, the Bench described the remedy as an important judicial instrument created to secure justice for disadvantaged sections of society who may otherwise lack access to the courts. It stressed that such proceedings must remain focused on genuine public causes and cannot become vehicles for settling individual scores.
While acknowledging that any sincere public-spirited citizen may seek enforcement of public duties through the courts, the Bench clarified that such petitions must be pursued with clean hands and free from hidden or collateral motives.
Holding that the petition did not satisfy these requirements, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. No order as to costs was passed.
