Madras High Court Denies PIL Request Against DVAC Chief
On Wednesday, the Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by YouTuber Shankar, also known as Savukku Shankar, which sought an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the activities of A Arun, the Director of Tamil Nadu’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). The case, referenced as Savukku Shankar Vs State, was presided over by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.
Court Finds Lack of Bona Fide Interest
The bench concluded that Shankar’s PIL lacked bona fide intent, as it appeared to be driven by a personal dispute with Arun. The judges emphasized that PILs should not be used to settle personal vendettas or grievances. The court stated, “A public interest litigation cannot be utilized as a strategic weapon to settle personal scores or satisfy a private grudge.”
Contentions and Background
Shankar’s petition requested a CBI investigation into Arun, citing adverse remarks made in the case of Varsha Sharma v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government. In that instance, the High Court criticized Arun for issuing a preventive detention order based on extraneous reasons, noting a pattern of such orders being quashed previously. Shankar alleged that Arun’s continued leadership of the DVAC undermines public trust and argued for an independent investigation, given the state’s inaction despite formal complaints.
Allegations and Court’s Observations
The court observed that Shankar’s allegations against Arun included claims of illicit wealth accumulation, suggesting a deeply personal conflict rather than a public interest issue. The bench remarked, “Article 226 jurisdiction must not be abused by individuals who pretend to fight for justice while acting on personal or hidden motives.”
Upholding the Integrity of PILs
The court reiterated that PILs are “sacred tools” designed to provide justice to marginalized populations who cannot independently seek legal recourse. These litigations should not devolve into platforms for addressing personal disputes. The bench concluded that while public-spirited citizens can seek judicial intervention to enforce public duties, their actions must be genuine and free of ulterior motives.
More Read
The court underscored, “The ultimate test of substance and public interest cannot be used as a shield to validate an action that is fundamentally rooted in personal animosity.” Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable, without any costs.
Legal Representation
Shankar was represented by Advocates Balaji Srinivasan and P Rajkumar Pandian. The opposition included Government Pleader Mohammed Fayaz Ali, representing the state, and Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M Dinesh for the other respondents.
