Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 6) set aside the interim order passed by the Madras High Court which prohibited the Tamil Nadu Government from using the name of Chief Minister MK Stalin for the 'Ungaludan Stalin' (Your Stalin) scheme announced to create awareness about welfare programmes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria passed the direction in the petitions filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party as well as the Tamil Nadu Government against the High Court's order. The High Court's order had restrained the use of names and photographs of living personalities, former Chief Ministers, party leaders or political parties for government welfare schemes.

The Supreme Court was critical of the conduct of AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam (the petitioner before the HC) in singling out only the scheme of the TN Government in his challenge when such schemes in the names of leaders were common across the country. The Court noted the submission of DMK that during the term of AIADMK several schemes were carried out in the name of leaders.

"The planting of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon which is followed across the country. 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. If the petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of political funds, the petitioner could have made a challenge to all such schemes. However, singling out only one political leader shows the intentions of the petitioner," the Court observed.

The Court also noted with disapproval that the petitioner had rushed to the High Court within three days of making a representation to the Election Commission of India. The Court observed that the writ petition was not only "misconceived in law" but also an "abuse of the process of law."

"Time and again, we have observed that political battles should be settled before the electoral roll and courts should not be used for this," the Court observed in the judgment.

The Court withdrew to itself the petition pending in the High Court and dismissed it with a cost of Rs 10 lakhs. The cost was directed to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu Government within a week. The Court specifically directed that the Government should use the amount for the welfare of the underprivileged.

Court room exchange

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi appeared for the DMK

Rohatgi submitted that the Supreme Court's judgment in Common Cause (2015) allowed the use of the pictures of the incumbent Prime Minister, Chief Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and Governors for welfare schemes. He submitted that even during the AIADMK's term, many schemes were carried out in the name of 'Amma' (late ex-CM and AIADMK leader Jeyalalitha). Rohatgi also took exception to the High Court passing an ad-interim order on the very first date of hearing.

Supplementing Rohatgi, Singhvi submitted that during the previous AIADMK government, various schemes were launched in the name of "Amma". He also submitted that the Common Cause judgment does not address the issue whether a scheme can be named after the Chief Minister as the issue was limited to the use of photographs.

Senior Advocate P Wilson for the DMK submitted that the scheme, named "Ungaludan Stalin" (Stalin with you) for doorstep awareness of government welfare schemes, was launched on June 19 and a "politically motivated" PIL was filed a month later in a casual manner. Wilson added that the guidelines of the Election Commission of India, issued pursuant to the Common Cause judgment, only prohibited the use of party names or symbols for government programmes.

Advocate General PS Raman appeared virtually for the State.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam (the petitioner before the HC), submitted that the scheme itself was named after the sitting Chief Minister.

But CJI asked Singh to point out any specific observation in the Supreme Court's Common Cause judgment which prohibited the naming of the scheme in question. Singh submitted that the Common Cause judgment was against the use of government schemes for the promotion or glorification of the ruling political party or its leaders. CJI asked if the scheme in question was using the name of any political party or leaders. "They are using the name of CM," Singh replied.

CJI Gavai specifically asked if the use of CM's name has been prohibited by the Common Cause judgment. "Even the use of photographs have been diluted by subsequent orders," CJI said, referring to the subsequent orders modifying the Common Cause judgment allowing the use of pictures of Governors, Cabinet Ministers etc. "You can continue to argue. But you should know that the cost will be commensurate to the time you take for arguments. We are warning you. You can go on," CJI told Singh at one juncture.

Singh, in his arguments, submitted that according to the petitioners, it is not a scheme but an awareness programme to give information to the public about the other government schemes. Singh said that the schemes which are listed in the awareness campaign are named after the office of the Chief Minister and not the individual name of the Chief Minister. "This is not a scheme, but a method to incorporate the name of the Chief Minister in all the schemes from previous years," Singh said.

The High Court's interim order is to the effect that while launching and operating government welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of DMK shall not be included.

The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and others, had clarified that publication of a photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister was permissible but use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers was prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court.

Case : DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM Vs THIRU. C.VE. SHANMUGAM | SLP(C) No. 21487/2025