"Publicity Interest Litigation": Madras HC Slams PIL Over Dalit Youth's Custodial Death, Body Held Hostage in Protests

In a sharply worded order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed over the alleged custodial death of 26-year-old Scheduled Caste youth Aakash from Krishnarayapuram village in Sivagangai district. Justices N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman branded the petition a "publicity interest litigation," criticizing the use of the deceased's body as a protest tool and noting an ongoing parallel case already under judicial scrutiny.

From Custody to Controversy: The Tragic Timeline

Aakash, in judicial custody, allegedly died due to police torture, sparking outrage. A prior writ petition by A. Rajeshkannan—W.P.(Crl.)(MD) No.1392 of 2026—filed as early as March 9, 2026, led to the case's transfer to the CB-CID wing. Offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were invoked in the FIR, and a judicial magistrate conducted an inquest under Section 196 of the BNS. A Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed to monitor the probe, with the single judge issuing directions.

Enter C. Selvakumar, President of Madurai District Devendrakula Velalar Uravinar Sangam, who emailed a representation on March 22, 2026, at 11:27 p.m. and filed this PIL the next day. He sought immediate arrests of accused police under the SC/ST Act, handover of Aakash's body for dignified last rites with protection, and transfer of Sivagangai police ahead of elections to ensure impartiality.

Petitioner's Cry for Justice vs. State's Defense of Due Process

Selvakumar argued the investigation was "sluggish," with no arrests despite grave allegations, denying the family Article 21 rights to last rites and fueling local tensions. He implicated caste bias, demanding external officers for fair polls.

The State countered that the single judge was actively supervising, countering claims of delay. Additional Advocate General M. Ajmal Khan highlighted the FIR's inclusion of SC/ST provisions and ongoing monitoring, rendering the new PIL redundant and extraneous.

Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: No Room for Duplicates or Drama

The bench noted the hasty filing post-email, questioning motives amid a supervised probe. No precedents were cited, but the court emphasized Article 21's scope, extending to "decent burial" while faulting protesters—not the State—for withholding rites. It deferred police transfers to the Election Commission's domain, refusing interference.

Integrating reports from legal portals, the court echoed concerns that the body remained unburied for days, turning grief into political theater.

Key Observations

"The manner in which the present petition has been filed clearly indicates that it has been instituted for extraneous reasons."

"We are also constrained to note that, despite the investigation proceeding in the right direction under the supervision of the learned Single Judge, the body of the deceased has not been taken for burial and protests are continuing. 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."

"We are therefore of the view that the present writ petition is nothing but a publicity interest litigation and is devoid of merits."

Dismissed: A Clear Message on PIL Abuse and Parallel Probes

"Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs," ruled the bench on March 25, 2026. This reinforces judicial caution against serial PILs, prioritizing ongoing supervisions and upholding Article 21 without state blame. Families must now proceed with rites, while the single judge continues oversight—potentially streamlining custodial death inquiries but cautioning activists on timing and multiplicity.

The ruling underscores that while SC/ST atrocities demand swift action, courts won't entertain shadow proceedings, possibly deterring opportunistic filings ahead of elections.