The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan said that it would consider the plea on maintainability and pass orders. The bench also wondered how the plea, which was in the nature of a public interest litigation, was maintainable when Shankar himself claimed to be someone who was affected by the orders passed by Arun, IPS.

“You have admitted that you have made remarks against the officer. It is your own cause you're espousing before the court. Once you say you're personally affected, it's not a public interest litigation,” the bench orally remarked.

When Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for Shankar, argued that it was a matter of human rights violation, the court remarked that Shankar should approach the appropriate authority like the Human Rights Commission instead of filing a public interest litigation.

“If you're saying human rights is involved, you have to approach the Human Rights Commission. As per your own submission, you are an interested person. Show us any law which permits an interested person to file a PIL,” the court asked.

The court also asked the counsel to circulate judgments that would support his case, by 3 pm today and added that the bench would pass orders after considering every material in detail.

Shankar had approached the court seeking 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 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.

On Wednesday, the bench asked Shankar what further enquiry he was seeking when the court had already censured the officer. The bench also remarked that Shankar was not remediless and if he was aggrieved, he could approach the appropriate authorities.

Case Title: Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v The State

Case No: WP 23757 of 2026