Madras High Court Dismisses Savukku Shankar's PIL, Cites Personal Grudge Against IPS Officer

The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by YouTuber 'Savukku' Shankar, who sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Indian Police Service (IPS) officer A. Arun. The court held that the petition was not maintainable as it was rooted in personal animosity rather than genuine public interest.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan observed that the judicial order relied upon by the petitioner revealed a history of personal allegations against the officer. The judges noted that the intent behind the petition could not be considered 'purely public spirited or bona fide.'

'The ultimate test of substance and public interest cannot be used as a shield to validate an action that is fundamentally rooted in personal animosity. In the instant case, the record is unmistakably clear about the petitioner's personal grievance against the fourth respondent and the same completely strips this petition of its bona fide character,' the bench stated.

Shankar had relied on a May 29, 2026 order by a vacation bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan, which had censured Arun for a series of preventive detention orders passed under the Goondas Act during his tenure as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police. That bench had quashed a detention order against realtor Santosh Sharma, observing that the order was passed for 'extraneous reasons.' It also noted that Arun had been 'habituated' to passing such orders and cited instances against Shankar and journalist R. Varaaki, both of which were later quashed.

However, the Chief Justice's bench emphasized that the vacation bench's observations also highlighted a personal adversarial relationship between Shankar and Arun. 'One Savukku Shankar had levelled serious allegations against Thiru Arun IPS. According to him, Thiru Arun IPS had amassed wealth to the tune of a few hundred crores. Thiru Savukku Shankar also led a campaign against the previous government. He was detained as a Goonda by the very same officer vide order dated April 9, 2026,' the vacation bench had written.

Citing this, the division bench said: 'The said observation unequivocally demonstrates a personal adversarial equation between the petitioner, Savukku Shankar, and the fourth respondent.'

The court reiterated that PIL jurisdiction cannot be used to settle personal scores. 'It is a well-settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence that a public interest litigation cannot be utilised as a strategic weapon to settle personal scores or satisfy a private grudge. Article 226 (writ) jurisdiction must not be abused by individuals who pretend to fight for justice while acting on personal or hidden motives,' the judges added.

Arun currently serves as Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The court dismissed the petition holding it not maintainable.