The Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the Madras High Court ruling prohibiting Tamil Nadu's DMK administration from naming a scheme after Chief Minister M K Stalin.
The panel of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria stated that the plea was "misconceived in law" and amounted to "abuse of the process of law”, and cautioned that political battles should be fought before the electorate, not in courts.
The SC expressed strong disapproval of AIADMK leader and MP C Ve Shanmugam for approaching it just three days after submitting a complaint to the Election Commission of India. The court imposed a ₹10 lakh fine on him, instructing that the amount be paid to the Tamil Nadu government and specifically used for the benefit of underprivileged communities.
Shanmugam had requested a ban on the Tamil Nadu government's use of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s name in state-run outreach initiatives like "Ungaludan Stalin" ("With You, Stalin"), arguing that it breached judicial norms and the Election Commission’s code of conduct, Indian Express reported.
The state government countered that earlier administrations had also named welfare schemes after prominent political figures, such as the “Amma” schemes introduced under former CM J Jayalalithaa.
Meanwhile, a division bench of the Madras High Court had earlier, on August 1, prohibited the state from naming or rebranding any government programme after living individuals. It also restricted the use of images of ideological icons, former chief ministers, or symbols associated with the ruling DMK in publicity materials for such schemes.
The Supreme Court bench said, “The naming of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon which is followed across the country. 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.”
“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,” it said.