The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court.
Facts Of The Case:
The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the “Ungaludan Stalin” (Your’s Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme’s name and associated advertising misused public funds for political propaganda, glorifying the ruling party’s leader. Unsatisfied with the pace of the ECI’s response, the petitioner immediately filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court passed an interim order restraining the government from using the name of the political leader, party insignia, or photographs of former Chief Ministers in any advertisements for the scheme. Challenging this interim order, both the State Government and the political party (DMK) filed appeals in the Supreme Court, arguing the scheme was operational and not merely an advertisement, and that naming schemes after leaders was a common, non-prohibited practice across the country.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case originated with a complaint filed before the Election Commission of India on July 18, 2025. Subsequently, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025 before the Madras High Court on July 21, 2025, seeking relief against the implementation of the “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme. A Division Bench of the High Court, in WMP No. 30663 of 2025, passed an interim order on July 31, 2025, restricting the use of political names and symbols in government advertisements related to the scheme. Aggrieved by this order, the State of Tamil Nadu and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court, which were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 10259-10260 of 2025. The Supreme Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, withdrew the writ petition from the High Court and heard the matter alongside the appeals, culminating in its final judgment.
READ ALSO :Not Just Salaried: Supreme Court Rules Self-Employed Accident Victims Get Future Income Rise
Court Observation:
In its observations, the Supreme Court noted that the naming of government welfare schemes after political leaders is a widespread phenomenon across the country and is not expressly prohibited by the guidelines established in the Common Cause judgments, which primarily concern the use of photographs in government advertisements. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the writ petitioner’s motives, observing that the selective targeting of a single scheme, while ignoring numerous other similarly named schemes, indicated a political vendetta rather than a genuine concern over the misuse of public funds. It further criticized the petitioner for rushing to the High Court without allowing the Election Commission a reasonable time to adjudicate the initial complaint, an action the Court deemed an abuse of the legal process. The judiciary emphasized that courts should not be used as an arena to settle political scores between rival parties.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned interim order of the Madras High Court. It dismissed the original writ petition with costs, quantifying them at ₹10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakh), to be deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu. The Court held that the petition was not only misconceived in law but also a total abuse of the process of law, as the naming of schemes after political leaders is not prohibited. The deposited costs were directed to be used for the implementation of welfare schemes for the underprivileged. Failure to deposit the costs within one week would render the petitioner liable for contempt of court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam Citation: 2025 INSC 976 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 10259-10260 of 2025 Date of Judgement: August 06, 2025 Judges/Justice Name:Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N.V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here