The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 15) refused to entertain a plea seeking the establishment of District Revenue Information Channels across Tamil Nadu, observing that the issue lay squarely within the executive's policy domain. During the hearing, the Court orally remarked that Tamil Nadu was a "very vibrant State" whose people were well-informed even without dedicated television channels.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the special leave petition filed against a Madras High Court order rejecting similar relief.

Responding to the petitioner's contention that the absence of District Revenue Information Channels deprived nearly seven crore people of their "Right to Know" about government schemes, the CJI said:

"Don't underestimate your State. According to us, it is a very vibrant State. Even without TV channels, people are very well-versed with what's happening. Very educated people."

The petitioner, a practising advocate, argued that dedicated district-level government information channels were necessary to disseminate details of welfare schemes and public programmes. He claimed that the lack of such channels adversely affected citizens' fundamental rights and sought interim directions for installation of revenue information display boards and appointment of nodal officers.

The Bench, however, held that establishing such channels was a matter of governmental policy involving financial considerations and therefore beyond the scope of judicial review.

"Creation of District Media Revenue Channels essentially involves a policy decision, more so, when it has financial implications. We are satisfied that the issue does not fall in the domain of the judicial review. The petitioner, if so advised, may pursue the matter with the executive," the Court said in its order.

During the hearing, the CJI also observed that since there had been a change in the State government, the petitioner could place his proposal before the executive for consideration.

When the petitioner insisted that the issue involved fundamental rights under Article 21, Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked in a lighter vein that dedicated news channels were no longer indispensable in the age of social media influencers.

The petitioner further argued that political parties and cinema channels largely propagated political narratives and entertainment rather than disseminating public information. He also contended that effective media functioning reduced corruption, whereas poor media functioning encouraged it.

At one stage, the CJI advised the petitioner, who appeared in person, to focus on his legal career instead of pursuing the litigation.

"Forget about these TV channels. You think of Supreme Court practice. You have to consider two things very seriously. If you want to continue in practice, then you can think of shifting to Supreme Court. You can very ably argue some matters. Secondly, now the new elections must encourage you. You can also form a political party and contest the next elections in the State. And your agenda can be that if you are brought in power, you will provide TV channels in every district or at taluqa level," the CJI remarked.

Despite the petitioner's insistence on securing interim directions for revenue display boards and nodal officers, the Bench declined to grant any relief and left it open to him to pursue the matter before the executive authorities.

Case: S. Vijayapandian v. The Principal CM Secretary and Ors., SLP (C) No. 15172/2026.