Launching Of Welfare Schemes In Political Leaders' Name Is A Phenomenon Followed Throughout The Country: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was considering a batch of matters challenging the order passed by the Madras High Court whereby it was held that while launching Government Welfare Schemes, the names of political leaders shall not be included.
Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N. V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has imposed Rs. 10 lakh cost on AIADMK MP C. Ve. Shanmugam while dismissing his writ petition challenging the usage of the name of a political leader under the Ungaludan Stalin scheme. The Apex Court made it clear that the launching of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon which is followed throughout the Country.
The Supreme Court was considering a batch of matters challenging the order passed by the Madras High Court whereby it was held that while launching and operating Government Welfare Schemes through various advertisements, the names of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or part insignia/emblem/flag of appellant (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) shall not be included.
The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria stated, “The launching of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon which is followed throughout the Country. As already stated hereinabove, Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has given a list of 45 such schemes, wherein the schemes have been portrayed in the name of the various political leaders. We, however, do not wish to refer to the list of those schemes in order to avoid any embarrassment to any of the political party.”
Calling the petition an abuse of the process of law, the Bench said, “Time and again we have observed that the political battles should be fought before the electorate. At the cost of repetition, we observe that the Courts should not be used to settle the political scores between the rival political parties.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Writ Petition had been filed by the respondent C. Ve. Shanmugam, who is a sitting Member of Parliament, belonging to a political party which is in opposition in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil Nadu promulgated a scheme known as “Ungaludan Stalin” whereby it was provided that, though various schemes have been notified by the State Government, the citizens encounter challenges in availing of the said schemes due to a lack of knowledge, difficulty in understanding the procedural aspects. Under the said scheme, it was stated that every household would be visited by a volunteer, who would inform the family about the objective and details of the camp, explain the eligibility conditions and documents required to avail those services.
Being aggrieved by the said G.O., a representation/complaint came to be filed by the writ petitioner before the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Clause 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The complainant then moved the High Court. The Division Bench passed the impugned order as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, two special leave petitions were filed, one by the political party, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the other by the State of Tamil Nadu.
Reasoning
The Bench stated, “When such schemes are floated in the name of leaders of all the political parties, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the writ petitioner to choose only one political party and one political leader. If the writ petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of public funds by the political parties, the writ petitioner would have made a challenge to all such schemes across the Country. However, singling out only one scheme by one political party in the name of one political leader, smacks about the motives of the writ petitioner. Apart from that, the manner in which the petition has been filed, also smacks about the motives of the writ petitioner.”
It was also noticed that without giving an opportunity to the ECI to decide the said representation, the writ petitioner had rushed to the High Court on July 21, 2025, i.e., within three days of making the representation. “Not giving even a breathing period to the ECI and making such statements with regard to the Commission’s failure to act on the representation within a reasonable period, the writ petitioner, in our view, has also tried to castigate the ECI”, it said.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order and dismissed the Writ Petition pending before the High Court with costs quantified at Rs 10 lakh to be deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu. “The writ petitioner shall deposit the cost within a period of one week from today. On deposit of the said amount, the State shall use it only for the purposes of implementation of any of the welfare schemes floated for the underprivileged in the State”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam V. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 976)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, P. Wilson, A.M. Singhvi, A. Mariarputham, Advocates Richardson Wilson, Apoorv Malhotra, Lokesh Krishna, Aditya Ojha, Ankit Sharma, Saran Raghunandan, Aravind, AOR Anuradha Arputham, Advocates Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Adv. Gen. (State of T.N.) P.S. Raman, AOR T. Harish Kumar, Advocate Priyansha Sharma, Advocates Shubham Kothari, Deepak Jain, Shubham P. Chopra
Respondent: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, Advocates K Gowtham Kumar, Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Inbadurai, V Prabhu, AOR Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Gen. (State of T.N.) P.S. Raman, AOR T. Harish Kumar, Advocates Priyansha Sharma, Shubham Kothari, Deepak Jain, Shubham P. Chopra