SHANKAR @SAVUKKU SHANKAR vs The State

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.07.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar
S/o.Late Achimuthu,
No.1417, 12th Floor,
TVS Emerald Light House,
200 Feet Radial Road, Iswarya Nagar,
Pallavaram, Chennai-600 041.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State
Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Vigilance Commissioner and
Commissioner for Administrative Reforms
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Joint Director
Central Bureau of Investigation South Zone,
EVK Sampath Building, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
______________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
4. Arun IPS
Director Directorate of Vigilance and
Anticorruption, No.93, MKN Road, Alandur
Chennai-600 016.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent
to conduct a fair, thorough, independent investigation against the 4th
respondent, Mr.Arun, IPS, presently holding the post of the Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tamil Nadu, in the light of
the adverse findings and observations recorded by this court in its
order dated 29.05.2026 passed in H.C.P.No.2066 of 2025 and to
submit a report before this court within a time frame to be fixed by
this court and consequently take appropriate action in accordance with
law.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Balaji Srinivasan [Thru VC]
for M/s.P.Rajkumar Pandian
For Respondent(s):Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
Government Pleader
for R1
Mr.M.Dinesh
Government Advocate (Crl)
for R2 to R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The extraordinary constitutional power granted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is intended to champion the cause
of justice, safeguard the public interest, and serve as a vital shield
______________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
against arbitrary State action. However, when the threshold of this
court is approached under the solemn nomenclature of " Public
Interest Litigation " [PIL], the court is duty-bound to screen the
credentials of the litigant with utmost circumspection.
2. By way of this public interest litigation, the petitioner,
Shankar @ Savukku Shankar, seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the third respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation
[CBI], to conduct a fair, independent, and thorough investigation
against the fourth respondent, Arun, IPS, who is currently serving
as the Director of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
(DVAC), Tamil Nadu.
3. The foundational bedrock of the petitioner’s plea rests
heavily upon certain adverse judicial observations and severe
strictures recorded against the fourth respondent by a Division
Bench of this Court in Varsha Sharma v. The Additional Chief
1
Secretary to Government .
1 Order dated 29.5.2026 in HCP No.2066 of 2025
______________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
4.1. Mr.Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, contended that the continuous holding of the topmost
position in the premier anti-corruption agency of the State by the
fourth respondent directly dents public confidence. It is argued that
a constitutional court has already cast severe aspersions on the
officer's bona fides .
4.2. To reinforce his argument, learned counsel drew the
attention of this court to certain observations made by the Division
Bench in Varsha Sharma (supra). It was urged that the Division
Bench had expressed severe anguish, noted that the officer was
" habituated to issuing such orders " in a reckless manner, and had
gone to the length of concluding that the preventive detention order
was passed for " extraneous reasons ". Learned counsel, therefore,
asserts that an independent inquiry by an external agency like the
CBI is absolutely indispensable to protect public interest, especially
given the fact that the State has failed to initiate any action despite
subsequent representations.
______________
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
4.3. During the course of the day, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted a compilation of judgments to establish the
maintainability of this public interest litigation. To buttress the
proposition that any public-spirited individual acting bona fide and
possessing sufficient interest can seek judicial redress when
constitutional or legal rights are infringed, strong reliance was
placed on the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in S.P.Gupta
2
v. Union of India .
4.4. To fortify the plea that the ultimate litmus test for the
maintainability of a public interest litigation lies in the substance of
the allegations and that the sufficiency of the petitioner’s interest
cannot be evaluated in isolation without examining the core subject-
matter of the complaint, particularly when it demonstrates a gross
failure to perform a public duty, reliance was placed on the decision
of the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Chaturdevi (3) v. Union of
3
India .
2 1981 (Supp) SCC 87
3 (2007) 4 SCC 380
______________
Page 5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
5. We have heard the submissions, perused the materials
placed on record, and analysed the judicial backdrop intertwined
with this matter.
6. At the very outset, it is apposite to refer to certain
observations contained in Varsha Sharma (supra) hereunder:
“18. A bare look at the sequence of events would show
that the materials relied on by the detaining authority
are rather stale and there is no live and proximate link
with the detenu's past conduct. In other words, there
was no urgent or imperative need to detain the detenu.
The impugned order has to fail on this score also.
19. The detaining authority knew fully well that the
case on hand does not fall within the category of public
order. He also knew that he was placing reliance on
events that had taken place not less than two years
earlier. The detaining authority is not a novice. He is a
direct recruit to I.P.S. He has served in various
capacities. If with 28 years of experience such an order
can be passed, it would only mean that it was done
deliberately and with full knowledge of law and the
facts involved.
______________
Page 6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
20. It is not the first instance that the detaining
authorities has come under our notice. One Savukku
Shankar leveled 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 09.04.2026. Challenging
the same, HCP No.937 of 2026 was filed. When it was
listed before us, the State submitted that the advisory
board expressed its unanimous opinion that there is no
sufficient cause for Savukku Shankar’s detention.
Hence, G.O.RT.No.2977 dated 19.05.2026 was issued
revoking the detention. Since the two detention orders
passed by Thiru Arun IPS came before us, we felt
constrained to summon him.
...
23. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that the
impugned detention order ought not to have been
passed in the first instance. We express our severe
anguish and displeasure. We reject the
explanation given by Thiru Arun IPS. The
impugned order has been deliberately passed. We
would normally not make such remark. But we are
constrained to do so because Thiru Arun IPS is
habituated to issuing such orders, most of which
______________
Page 7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
have come to the notice of this Court and
quashed. Even before us, he did not appear to feel
that he had passed a wrong order. He strongly justified
his conduct. He ought to be aware that a preventive
detention order cannot be passed recklessly as it has
serious implications on the detenu’s liberty. The
detention order has been passed for extraneous
reasons. We censure Thiru Arun IPS., for having
passed the impugned detention order .”
[ emphasis supplied ]
7. We must note that the order in Varsha Sharma (supra)
indeed reveals that the Division Bench had already censured the
fourth respondent for having passed the detention order and
recorded its displeasure regarding the arbitrary exercise of
draconian preventive detention laws. However, the crucial question
that falls for our determination is whether the petitioner has the
requisite locus standi to maintain this action as a genuine champion
of pro bono publico , or is the petition driven by personal malice.
8. A bare perusal of the very same order relied upon by the
petitioner exposes a fatal infirmity regarding the maintainability of
this writ petition. In paragraph 20 of the order in Varsha Sharma
______________
Page 8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
(supra), it has been specifically recorded that the petitioner has
levelled serious allegations against the fourth respondent. The said
observation unequivocally demonstrates a personal adversarial
equation between the petitioner, Savukku Shankar, and the fourth
respondent.
9. It is a well-settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence
that a public interest litigation cannot be utilized as a strategic
weapon to settle personal scores or satisfy a private grudge. Article
226 jurisdiction must not be abused by individuals who pretend to
fight for justice while acting on personal or hidden motives.
10. The Supreme Court has time and again issued a stern red
alert against entertaining PILs driven by private malice. In Janata
4
Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary , the Apex Court observed as under:
“109.  It is thus clear that only a person acting
bona fide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi
and can approach the court to wipe out the tears of
the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their
fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain
4 (1992) 4 SCC 305
______________
Page 9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under
the colour of PIL brought before the court for
vindicating any personal grievance, deserves
rejection at the threshold .”
[emphasis supplied]
11. Similarly, in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of
5
Maharashtra , the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that:
“4.  When there is material to show that a petition
styled as a public interest litigation is nothing but
a camouflage to foster personal disputes, the said
petition is to be thrown out . Before we grapple with
the issue involved in the present case, we feel it
necessary to consider the issue regarding public
interest aspect. Public interest litigation which has
now come to occupy an important field in the
administration of law should not be “publicity
interest litigation” or “private interest litigation”
or “politics interest litigation” or the latest trend
“paise income litigation”. The High Court has found
that the case at hand belongs to the last category. If
not properly regulated and abuse averted, it
becomes also a tool in unscrupulous hands to
release vendetta and wreak vengeance, as well.
5 (2005) 1 SCC 590
______________
Page 10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
There must be real and genuine public interest
involved in the litigation and not merely an
adventure of a knight errant borne out of wishful
thinking. It cannot also be invoked by a person or
a body of persons to further his or their personal
causes or satisfy his or their personal grudge and
enmity . ...”
[emphasis supplied]
12. Public Interest Litigation is a sacred tool intended to bring
justice within the reach of the marginalized and vulnerable
segments of society who are unable to approach the courts due to
structural or economic socio-disabilities. It cannot be reduced to a
forum for vindicating personal animosity. Since paragraph 20 of the
order passed Varsha Sharma [supra] explicitly records the hostile
backdrop and serious personal allegations made by the petitioner
against the fourth respondent, the intent behind this petition cannot
be termed as purely public-spirited or bona fide . Consequently, the
present public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner,
Savukku Shankar, is not maintainable.
______________
Page 11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
13. While this court acknowledges the foundational legal
principles enunciated in S.P. Gupta (supra) and Vishwanath
Chaturvedi (3) (supra), as cited by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the reliance placed on these authorities is entirely
misplaced in the matrix of the present case. There is no quarrel
with the proposition that a bona fide public-spirited citizen can seek
judicial redress to enforce a public duty, however, the critical, non-
negotiable prerequisite explicitly demanded by both precedents is
that the litigant must act bona fide and without oblique motives.
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. When the order in Varsha Sharma (supra) explicitly
records that the petitioner has levelled serious allegations against
the fourth respondent, the question of evaluating the sufficiency of
public interest or the substance of the complaint becomes entirely
secondary, as this court cannot allow its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 to be weaponized for personal vendettas.
______________
Page 12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
14. In light of the aforesaid findings and authoritative
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, this Court holds that the
petitioner lacks the bona fides required to sustain this action.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not
maintainable, sans costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
01.07.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
To:
1. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Vigilance Commissioner and
Commissioner for Administrative Reforms
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
3. The Joint Director
Central Bureau of Investigation South Zone,
EVK Sampath Building, College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
______________
Page 13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )

2026:MHC:2430
W.P.No.23757 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
W.P.No.23757 of 2026

01.07.2026
______________
Page 14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 07:00:57 pm )