Court Criticizes Petitioner for Relying on Unverified Media Reports and Pending Investigations
The Madras High Court, in a decisive judgment dated July 3, 2026, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner D. Radhakrishnan against the Union of India and others. The PIL sought the formation of an independent inquiry committee to scrutinize the regulatory approvals and autonomous status granted to a college, the seventh respondent in the case. The petitioner alleged discrepancies and pending vigilance investigations against the institution.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, criticized the petitioner for failing to conduct independent research before approaching the court. The court emphasized the importance of substantiating claims with verified information rather than relying on unverified media reports and ongoing criminal investigations. The judgment underscored that PILs should not be used to sensationalize legal processes without a solid factual foundation.
According to the judgment, the legal prerequisite for a writ of mandamus involves a prior demand for justice from the authorities and its subsequent refusal. The petitioner's representation dated April 29, 2026, sought the withdrawal of autonomous status and accreditation from the college, contrasting with the petition's request for an investigative inquiry. The court highlighted the inconsistency in the petitioner's approach, noting that the remedies sought in the representation and the petition were for entirely different purposes.
The court further criticized the petitioner's reliance on newspaper clippings, YouTube references, and an FIR (Cr.No.4/2025) to build a case against the college. The judgment pointed out that the petitioner had not conducted any independent research or verification before filing the PIL, thereby failing to meet the stringent threshold of "sufficient research" required for such litigation.
The court remarked that relying solely on the investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) or digital gossip does not satisfy the necessary criteria for filing a PIL. With an ongoing criminal investigation, the matter is sub judice, and the petitioner’s approach was seen as an attempt to sensationalize a pending legal process without verifying foundational facts independently.
The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition was based on the lack of independent research and the petitioner's failure to substantiate claims adequately. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring that PILs are filed with due diligence and not merely to attract public attention.
The writ petition was dismissed without costs, reinforcing the court’s stance against frivolous PILs and the importance of genuine public interest in judicial proceedings.
Bottom line:-
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) dismissed on the ground of lack of independent research and substantiation by the petitioner, as PIL should not be based solely on unverified media reports or pending criminal investigations.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
D. Radhakrishnan v. Union of India, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2935850
