SC junks HC order on TN govt using CM’s name in welfare schemes, penalises plaintiff

In a major victory for the DMK, the Supreme Court on 6 August, Wednesday, set aside an order directing the Tamil Nadu government not to use the name and photos of chief minister M.K. Stalin and other party stalwarts in state welfare schemes.

Terming the plea filed by AIADMK leader C. Ve. Shanmugam against the state government’s Ungaludan Stalin (With You, Stalin) outreach programme as “totally misconceived in law” and “an abuse of process of law”, the top court imposed Rs 10 lakh costs on him.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria asked Shanmugam to pay the amount to the state government within a week, making it clear that non-compliance would be met with a charge of contempt.

“The writ petition itself was totally unwarranted, misconceived in law but also an abuse of process of law. We therefore allow the SLP (special leave petition) and set aside the order of the Madras High Court. We are also inclined to dismiss the writ petition (pending before the high court),” the bench ordered.

The CJI added, “Time and again, we have observed that the political battles should be settled before the electorates and the courts should not be used for this.”

The top court transferred to itself the plea of the AIADMK leader from the high court and dismissed it. “Schemes have been floated in the names of various political leaders in various states as observed… We do not wish to refer to the other schemes in order to avoid embarrassment to any of the political parties as such schemes are being run in the name of the leaders of all the political parties,” the bench said.

The observations made in the order assume particular significance as senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the DMK and the state government, referred to previous schemes run by the erstwhile AIADMK government in the name of 'Amma' as well.

“We do not appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner (Shanmugam). He chose only one political party and its political leaders. If the petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of public funds by political parties, then the petitioner could have challenged all such schemes,” the order said.

The top court raised questions about the motive of the petitioner in singling out the DMK and the schemes of its government, while also questioning the filing of the plea in the high court in a hurried manner.

It also referred to the representation filed by the AIADMK leader with the Election Commission of India on 18 July for the suspension or withdrawal of recognition of the DMK.

The bench said, “First of all, undisputedly, there is no model code of conduct operating in the state of Tamil Nadu. First question therefore would arise whether such a representation before the Election Commission was tenable or not.”

It then went on to observe that without giving an opportunity to the poll panel to decide on the representation, the petitioner rushed to the high court on 21 July — within three days of the representation.

During the hearing, Rohatgi referred to judgements which allowed the use of the pictures of the incumbent prime minister, chief minister, cabinet ministers and governors for welfare schemes.

He submitted even during the AIADMK's term, many schemes were carried out in the name of 'Amma' [Jayalalithaa.

The Madras High Court on 31 July restrained the Tamil Nadu government from naming any new or rebranded public welfare schemes after living persons.

It also barred the use of portraits of former chief ministers, ideological leaders or any Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) insignia, emblem or flag in advertisements promoting such schemes.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the order while hearing a PIL filed by Shanmugam.

The MP had challenged the naming and promotion of the government's public outreach programme titled 'Ungaludan Stalin' (With You, Stalin), alleging that it violated established norms.

While the bench clarified that the order did not prevent the state from launching, implementing or operating any welfare schemes, it stated the restrictions applied solely to the nomenclature and promotional content associated with such schemes.