(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 6 to constitute an independent enquiry committee comprising competent officers of the concerned regulatory authorities to examine the allegations raised by the petitioner in his representations concerning the records submitted and relied upon by the seventh respondent institution for obtaining and continuing accreditation, autonomous status, affiliation and other regulatory approvals by verifying the original records and relevant materials and thereafter pass appropriate original records in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this court.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked ostensibly under the nomenclature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 6 to constitute an independent enquiry committee to scrutinize the regulatory approvals, affiliation, accreditation and autonomous status granted to the seventh respondent institution, on the basis of alleged discrepancies and pending vigilance investigations.

2. On a meticulous juxtaposition of the documents on record, this court finds an irreconcilable variance that strikes at the core of the grievance ventilated by the petitioner. The legal prerequisite for a writ of mandamus is a prior demand for justice made to the authorities and its subsequent refusal. The representation sent by the petitioner dated 29.04.2026 sought the withdrawal of autonomous status and accreditation conferred upon the seventh respondent college. Paradoxically, the prayer made in this petition requests the constitution of an independent high-level enquiry committee to investigate the seventh respondent’s original records.

3. We notice that the prayers made in the writ petition and the representation sent are for entirely different purposes. A petitioner cannot seek one extreme punitive remedy before the statutory authorities and subsequently approach this court asking for an investigative mechanism under a completely transformed pretext.

4. Moreover, 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 an First Information Report (Cr.No.4/2025) to build a narrative of widespread malpractice against the seventh respondent. No independent research or verification was conducted by the petitioner prior to rushing to this court.

5. Relying purely on the investigation of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) or digital gossip does not satisfy the stringent threshold of "sufficient research" mandated for filing a public interest litigation. A criminal investigation is already underway and the matter is entirely sub judice. Rushing to file a PIL without verifying the foundational facts independently is, in our considered view, solely to sensationalize a pending legal process. When a public interest litigation is filed without a shred of independent research, it must be throttled at the threshold.

For the aforegiven reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, sans costs.