He cited both “Ungaludan Stalin” and “Nalam Kaakum Stalin Scheme” as examples of state initiatives that allegedly offer unfair political mileage at taxpayer expense.
Published Aug 04, 2025 | 4:44 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 04, 2025 | 7:10 PM
Supreme Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court against a Madras High Court ruling banning the use of CM MK Stalin’s name in welfare scheme branding. The court objected to political promotion using public funds. Tamil Nadu argues naming is an executive right. The Supreme Court’s verdict could set a precedent for similar practices nationwide.
The Tamil Nadu government has approached the Supreme Court, contesting a recent Madras High Court ruling that prohibited the use of Chief Minister MK Stalin’s name, or that of former CM M Karunanidhi, in the branding of state welfare schemes.
The petition was taken up for urgent listing on Monday, 4 August, by a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai. Representing the Tamil Nadu government, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought early intervention. The court agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday, 6 August.
The legal dispute centres on a high court order that objected to schemes like “Ungaludan Stalin” (meaning “Stalin With You”), arguing that references to living political leaders in state programmes could serve as indirect political promotion using public funds.
While the high court made it clear that the scheme itself can continue, it restrained the state from including the Chief Minister’s name or photograph in any related publicity material.
The case originated from a petition filed by AIADMK MP CV Shanmugam, who 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 taxpayer expense.
The Tamil Nadu government, through its legal team, has rejected these arguments, calling the petition politically motivated.
Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson contended that decisions on scheme naming fall within the executive’s rights and are part of legitimate public engagement.
The Supreme Court is now expected to weigh in on the larger constitutional question of whether current political figures can be referenced in government welfare outreach, a ruling that could influence similar practices across states.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Veni EN)
