Madras High Court dismisses Savukku Shankar’s plea for a CBI probe against Arun IPS

Published 2 July 2026 · local

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar seeking

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar alias A. Shankar seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Indian Police Service (IPS) officer A. Arun on the basis of adverse remarks and strictures passed against the latter in a judicial order. Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan said, the judicial order relied upon by the petitioner records the hostile backdrop and serious personal allegations levelled by him against the IPS officer in the past. Therefore, the intent behind the present petition could not be termed as purely public spirited or bona fide, the judges said. “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 observed. The petitioner had relied upon an order of censure passed by a summer vacation Bench of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan against Mr. Arun on May 29, 2026. Now serving as Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the officer was then pulled up by the court for a series of preventive detention orders passed during his stint as Greater Chennai Commissioner of Police. After quashing one such order, passed under the Goondas Act against realtor Santosh Sharma, who was facing a cheating case lodged by DMDK Rajya Sabha member L.K. Sudhish’s wife S. Poornajothi, the Bench led by Justice Swaminathan had come down heavily on Mr. Arun and recorded a finding that the detention order had been passed for “extraneous reasons.” The vacation Bench had also observed in its verdict that the police officer was “habituated” to passing such detention orders under the Goondas Act and cited instances of similar orders passed by the same officer against the present petitioner as well as journalist R.

Varaaki. It also highlighted that both those detention orders too had been quashed by the High Court. “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 summer vacation Bench had written. Underlining that specific paragraph related to the personal animosity between the present petitioner and Mr. Arun from the May 29 judgement, the Chief Justice’s Bench, now, said: “The said observation unequivocally demonstrates a personal adversarial equation between the petitioner, Savukku Shankar, and the fourth respondent.” Holding the present PIL petition as not maintainable, the judges also said: “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.