Madras High Court dismisses Savukku Shankar’s PIL seeking CBI probe against DVAC chief A Arun

The Madras High Court on Wedneday dismissed a PIL filed by YouTuber Shankar alias Savukku Shankar seeking a CBI probe against Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) Director A Arun, IPS. (Savukku Shankar Vs State)

A Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan held that Shankar lacked the bona fides required to maintain a PIL, since the record showed a personal adversarial equation between him and Arun.

“A public interest litigation cannot be utilized as a strategic weapon to settle personal scores or satisfy a private grudge,” the Court said.

Shankar had moved the High Court seeking a direction to the CBI to conduct a fair, thorough and independent investigation against Arun, who is presently serving as Director of DVAC.

The plea was based on adverse observations made by another Division Bench of the High Court in Varsha Sharma v. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, where the Court had censured Arun over a preventive detention order.

In that case, the High Court had observed that the detention order was passed deliberately and for extraneous reasons. It had also said that Arun was “habituated to issuing such orders,” many of which had been quashed.

Relying on those observations, Shankar argued that Arun’s continuation as the head of the State’s premier anti-corruption agency dented public confidence. His counsel submitted that an independent probe by an external agency like the CBI was necessary, especially since the State had failed to act despite representations.

However, the Court noted that the same order relied upon by Shankar also recorded that he had made serious allegations against Arun, including that Arun had amassed wealth running into a few hundred crores.

This, the Bench said, showed a hostile backdrop and personal grievance between Shankar and Arun.

“Article 226 jurisdiction must not be abused by individuals who pretend to fight for justice while acting on personal or hidden motives,” the Court observed.

The Bench said that PIL is a “sacred tool” meant to bring justice within reach of the marginalised and vulnerable, and cannot be converted into a forum to vindicate personal animosity.

“Public Interest Litigation is a sacred tool intended to bring justice within the reach of the marginalized and vulnerable segments of society who are unable to approach the courts due to structural or economic socio-disabilities. It cannot be reduced to a forum for vindicating personal animosity,” the Court said.

It acknowledged that a bona fide public-spirited citizen can seek judicial redress to enforce public duties. However, it said the litigant must act bona fide and without oblique motives.

“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,” the Court held.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, without costs.

Shankar was represented by Advocates Balaji Srinivasan and P Rajkumar Pandian.

Government Pleader Mohammed Fayaz Ali appeared for the State, while Government Advocate (Criminal Side) M Dinesh appeared for the other respondents.

[Read Judgment]