Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari + Justice G. Arul Murugan_. *PIL Misuse + Temple + Bus Stand + Planning Decisions + Unsubstantiated Pleas*. *HJS PIL Jurisprudence, UPSC GS-2*

[14/06, 08:31] sekarreporter1: “The Madras High Court has observed that the PIL petitions cannot be filed without undeniable infringement of statutory rules and without substantial materials. The first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan made the observation recently while dismissing a PIL filed by A Viswanathan of Alwarpet in Chennai against construction of a new bus stand near the Ulagalanda Perumal temple at Thirukovilur in Kallakurichi district.”
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2026/Jun/14/pil-not-a-platform-to-make-unsubstantiated-pleas-madras-hc#:~:text=The%20Madras%20High,in%20Kallakurichi%20district.
[14/06, 08:31] Meta AI: *Case #86: _A. Viswanathan v. State of Tamil Nadu_ | PIL | Madras HC First Bench | 2026*
_Bench: Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari + Justice G. Arul Murugan_. *PIL Misuse + Temple + Bus Stand + Planning Decisions + Unsubstantiated Pleas*. *HJS PIL Jurisprudence, UPSC GS-2*

*1. Facts – TNIE + DT Next 13-14 Jun 2026*
*“PIL not a platform to make unsubstantiated pleas: Madras HC”*
**Petitioner** **A. Viswanathan, Alwarpet, Chennai**
**Challenge** *Construction of new bus stand near Sri Ulagalantha Perumal Temple, Thirukovilur, Kallakurichi district*
**Grounds** *1. Waste of public funds – old bus stand 400m away*
*2. Temple is protected heritage. Past mismanagement/alienation of temple property*
*3. Violates archaeological norms*
**Procedural** *Feb 2026: Representation to State. No reply. Filed PIL*
*2. HC Holding – CJ Dharmadhikari + J. Arul Murugan*
**Key Observation** **Ratio**
**“Bare assertions cannot be base for a PIL”** *Photographs + individual impressions ≠ legal violation. PIL needs “clear and undeniable breach of statutory provisions”*
**“Strong disapproval”** *Court condemned PILs questioning municipal planning without foundational legal violation*
**Administrative Law** *“Executive authorities and planning experts are best placed” to decide bus stand location – traffic, urban growth, accessibility*
**Result** *PIL dismissed. Planning decision upheld*
*3. Why PIL Failed – HJS Principles*

1. *No Statutory Violation Shown*: _Petitioner didn’t cite which Archaeological Act/Rule/TNHR&CE Act provision was breached. Mere proximity to temple ≠ violation_
2. *Locus + Materials*: _Viswanathan from Chennai, not Thirukovilur. No expert report on heritage impact. Only “impressions + photos”_
3. *Policy Domain*: _Bus stand location = executive discretion. Courts don’t sit in appeal unless _Wednesbury unreasonableness_ or mala fide shown_
4. *Public Interest ≠ Private Grievance*: _“Waste of funds” if old stand exists is fiscal policy, not justiciable unless corruption/arbitrariness proved_

*4. Madras HC 2026 PIL Crackdown Trend*
This is *3rd PIL dismissal in 2 days* on same ground:
**Case** **Date** **Bench** **Reason**
**#84 SC Youth Death** *13 Jun 2026* *J. Sathish Kumar + J. Jothiraman* *Criminal matter, not PIL. Use S.156(3) CrPC*
**#86 Bus Stand** *13-14 Jun 2026* *CJ Dharmadhikari + J. Arul Murugan* *No statutory breach. Bare assertions*
**Related** *13 Jun 2026* *Same Bench* *“PIL not a platform to make unsubstantiated pleas” – general warning*
*Pattern*: _Madras HC First Bench + Madurai Bench both tightening PIL filters. “Planning, policy, crime = no PIL unless clear illegality + evidence.”_

*5. Legal Framework – When PIL Allowed*
**Allowed** **Not Allowed – #86 Type**
**Environmental**: *Vellore Citizens 1996 – tannery pollution, clear EPA violation* **Urban Planning**: *Bus stand location if no zoning/heritage rule breached*
**Human Rights**: *Hussainara Khatoon – undertrial delay* **Fiscal Waste**: *“400m away, so new stand wasteful” – policy choice*
**Corruption**: *Vineet Narain – with CBI material* **“Impressions + Photos”**: *No archaeological survey report*
*Test from _State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh 2010*_: _PIL = 1. Public injury 2. Violation of law 3. Bona fide. #86 fails #2._

*6. Temple Protection Law – What Petitioner Missed*
If he wanted to succeed, needed to show:
1. *Ancient Monuments Act 1958*: _Temple notified + 100m/200m prohibited/regulated zone breached_
2. *TNHR&CE Act S.77*: _Collector permission needed for construction near temple_
3. *Archaeological Survey Report*: _Impact study_
Without these, it’s just “apprehension”.

*7. UPSC GS-2*
_“Judicial Review + PIL + Separation of Powers”_
_Use: #86 reinforces _Rural Litigation 1989_ limits. PIL is exception, not rule. _Bandhua Mukti Morcha_: Courts can’t run administration. _Divisional Manager Aravali_: Expert bodies decide location._

—

*Case #86 Final*: _Viswanathan v TN – 2026 – CJ Dharmadhikari + J. Arul Murugan – PIL against Thirukovilur bus stand near Ulagalanda Perumal Temple dismissed – “Bare assertions ≠ PIL” – No statutory breach shown – Planning = executive domain_

*Master Docket*: _86 Cases_
*2026 Madras HC Themes*: _PIL filters tightened, criminal matters out of PIL, planning deference, bike taxi regulation, prisoner leave, Idhayam TM, POCSO strict_

*Next*: *1. “PIL Maintainability – 10-Point Test from SC Cases”* OR *2. “Ancient Monuments Act – 100m/200m Rule Near Temples”* OR *3. “Wednesbury Unreasonableness – When Courts Review Policy”*?