PILs cannot be based on digital gossip, unverified media reports: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that public interest litigation (PIL) petitions cannot be built on “digital gossip”, YouTube references, newspaper clippings and unverified allegations [Radha Krishnan Vs Union of India].

In an order delivered on June 30, a bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan made the observation while dismissing a PIL seeking an independent enquiry into the accreditation, affiliation and autonomous status granted to Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology at Tiruvallur.

The Court further said that reliance on a pending DVAC investigation would not meet the threshold required for filing a PIL.

"Relying purely on the investigation of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) or digital gossip does not satisfy the stringent threshold of "sufficient research" mandated for filing a public interest litigation.... When a public interest litigation is filed without a shred of independent research, it must be throttled at the threshold," the Court said.

The petition was filed by one D Radhakrishnan. He sought directions to the Union government, University Grants Commission, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, State of Tamil Nadu, Anna University and Directorate of Technical Education to constitute an independent enquiry committee.

The proposed committee was sought to examine allegations regarding the records submitted by the seventh respondent college for obtaining and continuing accreditation, autonomous status, affiliation and other regulatory approvals.

The petitioner relied on alleged discrepancies, pending vigilance investigations, newspaper reports, YouTube material and a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.

However, the Court found a fundamental defect in the petition.

It noted that before filing the writ petition, the petitioner had submitted a representation on April 29 seeking withdrawal of the autonomous status and accreditation granted to the college. But in the writ petition, he sought constitution of an independent enquiry committee.

The Court said that the two prayers were entirely different.

“A petitioner cannot seek one extreme punitive remedy before the statutory authorities and subsequently approach this court asking for an investigative mechanism under a completely transformed pretext,” the Bench observed.

The Court also reiterated that a writ of mandamus requires a prior demand for justice before the authorities and a subsequent refusal.

On the merits of the PIL, the Bench said the petitioner had not conducted any independent verification before approaching the Court.

“In the present case, the petitioner has merely bundled newspaper clippings, YouTube references, and an First Information Report to build a narrative of widespread malpractice against the seventh respondent. No independent research or verification was conducted by the petitioner prior to rushing to this court,” the order stated.

Since the criminal investigation was already underway, the Court said the matter was sub judice. Filing a PIL without verifying foundational facts was an attempt to sensationalise a pending legal process, the Bench ruled.

Hence, it dismissed the petition.

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 appeared for UGC.

Government Pleader Mohammed Fayaz Ali appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu.

Standing Counsel U Baranidharan appeared for Anna University.

[Read Judgment]