Chennai, Aug 7 (NationPress) The Madras High Court has officially dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the Tamil Nadu government's decision to appoint four senior IAS officers as its designated spokespersons. The court also levied a cost of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner for what it deemed an unnecessary and unfounded plea.

A division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan, declined to consider the PIL presented by advocate M. Sathya Kumar from Selaiyur, Chennai, rejecting it at the admission stage.

The petition contested the appointments of IAS officers J. Radhakrishnan, Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Dheeraj Kumar, and P. Amudha as government spokespersons.

However, the bench clarified that these appointments were made by the state government, not the ruling political party, and emphasized that no legal provisions had been breached.

“The appointments were distinctly administrative and well within the state’s purview. There is no justification to claim that these officers are being utilized for political agendas,” the court stated.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that these appointments indicated an administrative overreach and that senior IAS officers should not be indirectly engaged for political messaging.

He asserted that the appointments were only publicized via a press release, without any official Government Order from the Governor. Additionally, the counsel contended that there was no evidence indicating that the decision had received the Council of Ministers' approval, as constitutionally required. He insisted that such a move necessitated constitutional scrutiny, particularly as it reportedly marked the first occasion that IAS officers were appointed as government spokespersons.

Nonetheless, the bench dismissed these claims, indicating that the petitioner had not shown any legal deficiency in the appointments or demonstrated how they contravened constitutional principles.

The judges reiterated that a PIL cannot be a means to challenge every administrative choice of the government without solid grounds. Describing the petition as lacking merit and frivolous, the court imposed a ₹1 lakh cost on the petitioner, sending a clear message against the misuse of PILs to contest valid administrative decisions.