YouTube videos, ‘digital gossip’ no basis for PIL against college, says Madras High Court

3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jul 6, 2026 01:49 PM IST

The Madras High Court held that public interest litigation must rest on verified research and credible evidence, not unverified digital content or media reports. (Image generated using AI)

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a man who relied on YouTube videos and newspaper clippings to demand a sweeping investigation into an engineering college in its regulatory approvals, affiliation, accreditation and autonomous status. The high court also ruled that public interest cases cannot be built on “digital gossip” and “unverified electronic media reports”.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan were hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one D Radhakrishnan against Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology and various other educational authorities.

“A person filing the public interest litigation should be a diligent researcher, not a casual collector of unverified electronic media discourse. In the present case, the petitioner has merely bundled newspaper clippings, YouTube references, and a First Information Report to build a narrative of widespread malpractice against the seventh respondent (Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering and Technology),” the court said in its July 3 order.

The petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate R Shunmugasundaram, was seeking an independent committee of regulatory officers to look into how the college secured and maintained its autonomous status and affiliation.

His claims relied heavily on an ongoing investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), alongside an existing 2025 FIR, to build a narrative of widespread malpractice against the college.

However, the court found the man’s legal request highly contradictory. In April 2026, he explicitly asked the authorities to immediately withdraw the college’s accreditation, yet he approached the court asking for an investigative committee under a completely transformed pretext.

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the petition due to a lack of extensive research.

‘No independent research to verify facts’

​The court pointed out a glaring contradiction in how the petitioner approached the justice system.

The judges noted that the petitioner cannot first approach statutory authorities demanding an extreme and punitive measure, such as immediately withdrawing a college’s autonomous status and then again approach the high court with a completely transformed request for a simple investigative committee.

​Delving into the quality of the submitted evidence, the court observed that the man had failed to act as a serious researcher.

The high court found that he merely gathered together unverified newspaper clippings and YouTube references without doing any independent research to verify the foundational facts.

​The bench highlighted that a criminal investigation by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) is already actively underway, and hence the matter is entirely sub judice.

The high court felt strongly that this petition was not filed to serve the public interest, but rather to unnecessarily sensationalise a legal process that is already in motion.

The court concluded that any PIL filed without a single shred of independent, verified research fails to meet the stringent legal threshold and must be firmly throttled at the very beginning.

The high court entirely dismissed the petition but did not impose any costs on the petitioner.

(With inputs from Avinash Verma, Avinash is an intern with The Indian Express)

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

dismissed

FIR

madras HC

Madras High Court

Madras High Court Bench

pil

Public interest litigation

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

youtube