The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an independent inquiry into the regulatory approvals and accreditation granted to a private engineering college, holding that a PIL cannot be founded merely on newspaper reports, YouTube content, or an ongoing criminal investigation without independent verification by the petitioner.
Background of the Case
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to authorities, including the Union Government, the University Grants Commission (UGC), and other regulatory bodies, to constitute an independent committee to examine records allegedly relied upon by the institution for obtaining accreditation, autonomous status, affiliation, and other approvals.
The petition referred to alleged irregularities and a pending vigilance investigation. However, the court found that the relief sought before the authorities in an earlier representation was different from the relief claimed in the writ petition. While the representation sought withdrawal of the institution's autonomous status and accreditation, the writ petition sought an independent inquiry into the institution's records.
Court's Observations
The division bench observed that a writ of mandamus requires a prior demand before the competent authority and a refusal of that demand. Since the representation and the writ petition sought entirely different reliefs, the basic requirement for issuing such a direction was absent.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The bench further stressed that a person filing a PIL must conduct proper and independent research instead of relying on publicly available material.
"The petitioner has merely bundled newspaper clippings, YouTube references and an FIR to build a narrative," the court observed, adding that such material, without independent verification, cannot form the basis of a public interest litigation.
The court also noted that a criminal investigation was already pending and held that depending solely on that investigation or unverified digital material does not satisfy the standard expected in PIL proceedings.
Decision
Holding that the petition lacked independent factual verification and did not meet the legal requirements for maintaining a public interest litigation, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition without costs.
Case Details
Case Title: D. Radhakrishnan v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 24190 of 2026
Judge: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan
Decision Date: 03 July 2026
 Department-300x169.webp)
