"PIL Not To Vindicate Personal Animosity”: Madras High Court Dismisses Savukku Shankar's Plea For CBI Probe Against TN Vigilance Chief

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed that public interest litigation is a tool intended to reach marginalised and vulnerable segments of society and not a tool for vindicating 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.

Earlier today, the court had wondered how the PIL would be maintainable when Shankar himself claimed to be someone who was affected by the orders passed by Arun. In its order dismissing the plea, the court noted that the personal allegations made by Shankar against Arun would show that the intent behind the PIL was not purely public-spirited.

“Since paragraph 20 of the order passed Varsha Sharma [supra] explicitly records the hostile backdrop and serious personal allegations made by the petitioner against the fourth respondent, the intent behind this petition cannot be termed as purely public-spirited or bona fide. Consequently, the present public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner, Savukku Shankar, is not maintainable,” the court said.

The court added that the personal grievance that Shankar has against Arun would strip the plea of its bona fide character. Thus, the court observed that its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be weaponised for personal vendettas.

Shankar had approached the court seeking a CBI probe based on the recent remarks made by a division bench of the High Court, where the bench had censured the IPS officer for passing a detention order for extraneous considerations.

In his plea, Shankar submitted that despite such a grave observation by the High Court, the State had not taken any action against the officer. He added that the continued inaction of the State, despite clear judicial censure, has given rise to a reasonable apprehension that no impartial enquiry or investigation would be undertaken by the State authorities. He further submitted that this apprehension is strengthened by the fact that Arun is currently serving as the Chief of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.

Shankar added that though he had sent representations to the concerned authorities raising apprehensions of the same, he did not receive any response. Thus, he approached the court for an independent investigation by the CBI.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Balaji Srinivasan for M/s.P.Rajkumar Pandian

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali Government Pleader, Mr.M.Dinesh Government Advocate (Crl)

Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 289

Case No: W.P.No.23757 of 2026