The Madras High Court has ruled that public interest litigation (PIL) petitions cannot be founded on "digital gossip", YouTube references, newspaper clippings or unverified allegations. The observation came while dismissing a PIL filed by D Radhakrishnan seeking an independent enquiry into the accreditation, affiliation and autonomous status granted to Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology in Tiruvallur.
In its June 30 order, a Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadikari and Justice Arul Murugan also held that merely relying on a pending Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) investigation does not meet the threshold required for maintaining a PIL, Bar & Bench reports.
Court stresses need for independent research
Emphasising the standards expected in public interest litigation, the Court said:
"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 petitioner had sought directions to the Union government, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), the State of Tamil Nadu, Anna University and the Directorate of Technical Education to constitute an independent enquiry committee.
The proposed panel was expected to examine allegations regarding the records submitted by the college to obtain and retain its accreditation, autonomous status, affiliation and other regulatory approvals.
Bench finds inconsistencies in petition
The petitioner relied on alleged discrepancies, pending vigilance investigations, newspaper reports, YouTube material and a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the DVAC.
However, the Court found a fundamental flaw in the petition. It noted that before approaching the High Court, the petitioner had submitted a representation on April 29 seeking withdrawal of the college's autonomous status and accreditation. In contrast, the writ petition sought the constitution of an independent enquiry committee.
Observing that the two prayers were materially different, the Bench said:
“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 Court also reiterated that a writ of mandamus can be issued only after a prior demand for justice has been made before the authorities and such a request has been refused.
PIL dismissed as investigation already underway
On the merits of the case, the Bench held that the petitioner had failed to independently verify the allegations before filing the PIL.
“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 a criminal investigation was already in progress, the Court observed that the matter was sub judice and held that filing a PIL without verifying the foundational facts amounted to an attempt to sensationalise an ongoing legal process. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Senior Advocate R Shunmugasundaram and advocate A Gopinath appeared for the petitioner. Senior Panel Counsel K S Jeyaganeshan represented the Union government, advocate V Sudha appeared for the UGC, Government Pleader Mohammed Fayaz Ali represented the State of Tamil Nadu, and Standing Counsel U Baranidharan appeared for Anna University.
