Public interest cannot shield personal grievances, says Madras HC, rejects Savukku’s PIL

CHENNAI: Holding that public interest cannot be used as a shield for petitions rooted in personal grievance, the Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed as not maintainable a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by YouTuber A Shankar alias Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe against DVAC Director A Arun.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that a PIL is a sacred judicial tool meant to secure justice for marginalised and vulnerable sections of society, and cannot be used to pursue personal animosity.

The bench held that Shankar's personal allegations against the senior IPS officer and the hostile relationship between the two deprived the petition of its bona fide character.

The court further observed that public interest cannot be used to shield a petition rooted in personal grievance and that its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be weaponised for pursuing personal vendettas.

Holding that the petitioner lacked the bona fides required to maintain the action, the bench dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.

Shankar had approached the court seeking a CBI probe against Arun, presently the Director of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, relying on recent adverse observations against him made by the High Court.

In his petition, Shankar submitted that while quashing a preventive detention order Arun passed as the then Chennai Commissioner, a Division Bench had held that the detention order was issued for extraneous reasons. The bench had also observed that Arun was habituated to passing such detention orders, which were subsequently set aside by the courts.

Shankar contended that despite these serious judicial findings, the State government had not initiated any action against the officer.

During the hearing, Shankar's counsel argued that the case involved human rights violations. The Court, however, observed that if that was the grievance, the petitioner should approach the Human Rights Commission instead of invoking the Court's PIL jurisdiction, particularly after admitting that he was an interested person.