Criticising the conduct of the petitioner in singling out Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court noted that naming schemes after leaders was common in the country.
Published Aug 06, 2025 | 2:59 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 06, 2025 | 2:59 PM
Supreme Court (iStock)
Synopsis: In a setback to the AIADMK, the Supreme Court quashed the Madras High Court order prohibiting the use of the chief minister’s name in welfare schemes, and censured the petitioner, MP Shangmugam, for singling out Tamil Nadu.
Setting aside an interim order of the Madras High Court banning the Tamil Nadu government from banning the use of the chief minister’s name in Ungaludan Stalin (Stalin with you), the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 6 August, directed the petitioner AIADMK MP C.Ve Shanmugam to pay ₹10 lakh to cover the legal cost.
The people-centric Ungaludan Stalin project, started on 16 July, aims at overcoming delays in addressing the issues of the common man in the state.
The Bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai, also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NY Anjaria, stayed the high court order after the ruling DMK and the Tamil Nadu government challenged the directive.
The legal dispute centres on a high court order that objected to schemes like “Ungaludan Stalin”, arguing that references to living political leaders in state programmes could serve as indirect political promotion using public funds.
The high court prohibited the use of the chief minister’s name or photograph, saying that references to living political leaders in state programmes could serve as indirect political promotion using public funds.
However, the court allowed the continuation of the scheme.
The case originated from Shanmugam’s petition, which argued that such branding violated Supreme Court precedents and the 2014 Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines.
He cited both “Ungaludan Stalin” and “Nalam Kaakum Stalin Scheme” as examples of state initiatives that allegedly offer unfair political mileage at the taxpayers’ expense.
Criticising the conduct of the petitioner in singling out Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court noted that naming schemes after leaders was common in the country. Earlier, the DMK submitted that the AIADMK, while in power, had named welfare schemes after its leaders.
“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,” Live Law quoted the court.
The apex court also disapproved of the petitioner’s haste in approaching the high court, just three days after he had complained to the Election Commission of India.
The Bench directed the petitioner to deposit the cost of ₹10 lakh with the Tamil Nadu in a week. The government should use the amount for welfare initiatives.
Representing the Tamil Nadu government, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the initiative was not a scheme, but a campaign aimed at increasing awareness and accessibility of existing welfare programmes.
He asserted that there was no violation of any court guidelines and pointed out that photographs of leaders—including Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and even Governors—have routinely been used in official campaigns. He mentioned that even the Chief Justice’s images were sometimes used.
The Chief Justice of India responded humorously to the point about judicial portraits being used, asking, “Why would our photos be used?” Singhvi replied, smiling, that photos of top judges may be included during oath-taking ceremonies or while inaugurating major schemes.
AIADMK’s senior counsel Maninder Singh, however, argued that the “Ungaludan Stalin” programme violated the court’s previous orders, which had explicitly disallowed the use of political leaders’ names, images, or party symbols in public welfare branding. He said that the current government was essentially using public money for self-promotion, and it undermined the neutrality of government programmes.
He further emphasised that the scheme used not just the Chief Minister’s name but also his image in all advertisements, claiming that such personalisation amounts to political propaganda. To reinforce his argument, he cited several Supreme Court judgements prohibiting such personalisation in taxpayer-funded programmes.
The DMK hit back by pointing out that during the previous AIADMK regime, more than 20 welfare schemes were named after a single individual—”Amma“, a clear reference to former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. Senior advocate P Wilson, appearing for the DMK, said the AIADMK lawyers were being dishonest in court by claiming otherwise.
The Bench also questioned AIADMK’s consistency, with the Chief Justice asking, “How many of your schemes were named after a single person?” The AIADMK counsel admitted none were named directly after individuals, prompting laughter and intervention from the DMK side, who offered to provide an immediate list of such schemes.
The DMK counsel further alleged that AIADMK’s legal challenge was driven by political motives to stop welfare delivery. “This petition was filed not to protect the law but to politically obstruct a people-centric programme,” Wilson said, adding that the government’s intention was only to ensure last-mile awareness and benefits.
Interestingly, the court was also informed that the petitioner was now a Rajya Sabha member and had served as a minister during the AIADMK regime, when 22 schemes were named after one individual. Wilson argued this undermined the petitioner’s moral authority.
When AIADMK’s counsel claimed that “Amma” is just a generic term and not a personal name, the court responded with irony, “Yes, yes, in Tamil Nadu anyone can be Amma,” triggering chuckles across the courtroom.
AIADMK clarified they had no objection to phrases like “Chief Minister’s Address” because it referred to the post, not the person. Their concern, they said, was with using individual names and images to brand what should be politically neutral government outreach.
The Chief Justice remarked that political rivalries must be settled on the election field, not inside courtrooms, implying that both parties should avoid using the judiciary for political point-scoring.
“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 ruled.
