IN A SIGNIFICANT RULING with far-reaching political and legal implications, the Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the July 31 Madras High Court’s interim order that had restrained the Tamil Nadu government from using Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s name and photograph in government welfare scheme advertisements. The Court also imposed a cost of ₹10 lakh on Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (‘DMK’) Member of Parliament C. V. Shanmugam, who had filed the original petition before the High Court.
Dismissing the writ petition pending before the High Court, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a bench also comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, directed that the fine of Rs. 10 lakhs be utilised for welfare schemes benefiting the underprivileged in the State.
“Time and again, we have observed that political battles should be settled before the electorate. Courts should not be used for this,” Chief Justice Gavai observed while pronouncing the order.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government and the ruling DMK party against the High Court’s July 31 interim order, which had prohibited the use of names or portraits of living persons, former Chief Ministers, ideological leaders, or political party symbols in publicity material for government schemes.
Criticising the selective nature of the challenge, the Supreme Court said it saw no justification in targeting only the Tamil Nadu government’s welfare schemes using Chief Minister Stalin’s name and photographs in their publicity. “The planting of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon that is followed across the country,” the bench observed, “When such schemes are floated in the name of all leaders of political parties, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner to choose only one political party and one political leader. Singling out only one political leader shows the intentions of the petitioner.”
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P. Wilson appeared for the DMK, while senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Tamil Nadu government. They submitted that during the AIADMK regime, several schemes were also named after political leaders, and the current scheme — 'Ungaludan Stalin' — was a continuation of that political tradition.
The High Court had earlier accepted the plea by Shanmugam, who alleged that the Tamil Nadu government was launching schemes in the name of the incumbent Chief Minister, using his photo, as well as symbols and imagery associated with the DMK and its ideological figures.
In its July 31 order, the High Court had reasoned that the use of ideological leaders’ and former Chief Ministers’ photographs appeared prima facie contrary to the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. However, the top Court on Wednesday clarified that its 2015 order — which initially restricted the use of photographs in government advertisements to only the President, Prime Minister, and the Chief Justice of India — had been modified on March 18, 2016.
That 2016 judgment had allowed for the inclusion of Governors, Chief Ministers, and relevant Departmental Ministers in such advertisements, acknowledging the federal character of Indian democracy. All other restrictions from the May 13, 2015, ruling, particularly those aimed at preventing a personality cult through public-funded advertising, remained intact.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated the modified legal position and noted that the Madras High Court’s interim restraint order had gone beyond what the top Court had prescribed. It held that there was no violation in using the Chief Minister’s name and photograph in the 'Ungaludan Stalin' scheme, especially since similar precedents existed across States and political parties.
The judgment effectively upholds the Tamil Nadu government’s position and reinforces that State-level schemes named after sitting Chief Ministers or prominent leaders are not inherently unconstitutional, provided they conform to the guidelines laid down by the top Court in 2015 and 2016.
The ruling is expected to have implications for other States where welfare schemes are often branded with the names and faces of political leaders. It also sends a cautionary signal against selectively invoking the judiciary for political battles.
