Supreme Court Overturns Madras HC Ban on Use of MK Stalin’s Name in Govt Schemes

Supreme Court Overturns Madras HC Ban on Using MK Stalin’s Name in State Schemes, Fines AIADMK MP ₹10 Lakh.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a Madras High Court order that had prohibited the use of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin’s name in government welfare schemes. The top court also imposed a ₹10 lakh cost on AIADMK MP C Ve Shanmugam, who had filed the petition, terming it a misuse of judicial process.

The Madras High Court’s July 31 ruling had barred the use of names of living political figures, photographs of former chief ministers or ideological leaders, and any party symbols or flags in the branding of government schemes. The ruling was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan.

“It would not be permissible to mention the name of the living political personality in the nomenclature of the government scheme,” the High Court had observed, stating that such practices were prima facie in violation of Supreme Court and Election Commission directives.

However, setting aside that verdict, the Supreme Court criticised the selective nature of the petition, pointing out that similar naming practices were followed across India by different political parties.

“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,” the court said, as quoted by LiveLaw.

The court also noted that the petitioner had approached the Madras High Court just three days after submitting a representation to the Election Commission, calling it an “abuse of the process of law.” It warned against dragging courts into politically motivated battles.

As a penalty for misusing judicial resources, the Supreme Court directed the AIADMK MP to deposit ₹10 lakh with the Tamil Nadu government. The amount is to be used specifically for welfare schemes benefiting the underprivileged.

The judgment is being seen as a significant rebuke of attempts to litigate politically charged issues through the courts, while reaffirming the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in partisan matters unless clear constitutional violations are involved.