Recently, the Madras High Court stepped in to examine whether a public interest litigation was genuinely aimed at securing justice or was an attempt to sensationalise an already monitored investigation. The Court raised a crucial constitutional concern, whether prolonged protests delaying last rites could themselves infringe the dignity of the deceased under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, while also questioning the bona fides of parallel judicial interventions.
The controversy began when a PIL was filed seeking the immediate arrest of police personnel under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and transfer of officials, alleging a sluggish probe into the custodial death of a young Scheduled Caste man. The petitioner argued that despite the gravity of the allegations, no meaningful action had been taken and that the delay had prevented the family from conducting last rites with dignity.
However, the State strongly opposed the plea, pointing out that the matter was already under active consideration of a Single Judge since earlier in the month, with continuous judicial monitoring. It was further highlighted that the investigation had been transferred to the CB-CID, appropriate penal provisions had already been invoked, and a Deputy Superintendent of Police was supervising the probe. The State also drew attention to the timing of the petition, filed almost immediately after a late-night email representation, suggesting a lack of genuine urgency and possible ulterior motives.
The Division Bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar and Justice M. Jothiraman observed that the filing of the petition, despite ongoing judicial supervision, indicated that it had been instituted for extraneous considerations. The Bench observed, “We express our anguish that the dead body is being used as a means of protest for days together. Providing a decent burial is also part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” The Court clarified that the State had not impeded the performance of last rites and that the delay was attributable to continued protests. It further emphasised that once an investigation is under judicial monitoring, parallel PILs seeking similar reliefs risk undermining the process and cannot be entertained casually. The Court also emphasised that decisions such as the transfer of officials fall within the domain of competent authorities like the Election Commission and cannot be directed mechanically in such proceedings.
Consequently, finding no merit and terming the petition as a “publicity interest litigation,” the Court declined to intervene and dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: C.Selvakumar Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner and Ors
Case No.: W.P(MD)No.8029 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.Sathish Kumar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.Jothiraman
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. K.Kannan
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Niranjan Rajagopal, DSGI K.Govindarajan, AAG M.Ajmal Khan, AGP A.Kannan, APP R.M.Anbunithi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
