The Madras High Court has recently emphasized that public interest litigations (PILs) cannot rely on ‘digital gossip,’ YouTube sources, newspaper clippings, or unverified allegations. This ruling was given in the case of Radha Krishnan Vs Union of India, where the court dismissed a PIL seeking an independent investigation into the accreditation and autonomous status of Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology in Tiruvallur.
Critical Observations by the Court
The bench, comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice Arul Murugan, delivered the order on June 30. The court noted that a petition cannot be built on pending Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) investigations alone, as they do not meet the ‘sufficient research’ standard required for filing a PIL. ‘When a public interest litigation lacks independent research, it should be dismissed at the outset,’ the court stated.
Details of the Petition
The PIL was filed by D Radhakrishnan, who requested that the Union government, University Grants Commission, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, the State of Tamil Nadu, Anna University, and the Directorate of Technical Education set up an independent committee. This committee was to examine the allegations concerning the records submitted by the college for obtaining accreditation and other regulatory approvals.
Radhakrishnan based his petition on alleged discrepancies, ongoing vigilance investigations, and media reports. However, the court found a fundamental flaw, noting that before filing the writ, the petitioner had asked for the withdrawal of the college’s autonomous status and accreditation in a prior representation on April 29. The court highlighted that the petition’s prayers were fundamentally different.
Mandamus and Due Process
The court reiterated that a writ of mandamus requires a prior demand for justice and a subsequent refusal by the authorities. The Bench criticized the petitioner for not conducting any independent verification before approaching the court. ‘The petitioner merely compiled newspaper clippings, YouTube references, and an FIR to create a narrative of malpractice against the respondent. No independent research was undertaken before pursuing this court,’ the order emphasized.
More Read
Ruling and Representation
The court further clarified that since a criminal investigation was already in progress, the issue was sub judice, and filing the PIL without verifying foundational facts was an attempt to sensationalize an active legal process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate R Shunmugasundaram and Advocate A Gopinath. Senior Panel Counsel K S Jeyaganeshan appeared for the Union government, Advocate V Sudha for the UGC, Government Pleader Mohammed Fayaz Ali for the State of Tamil Nadu, and Standing Counsel U Baranidharan for Anna University.
