E-Paper
SC junks Madras HC order against Tamil Nadu government using CM’s name, photo in schemes
The SC warned of contempt of court action if the petitioner failed to comply with its order and directed the state to utilise the amount in a scheme for the benefit of underprivileged sections of society.
The Supreme Court on Monday said there is nothing illegal in government welfare schemes being named after political leaders, setting aside a judgment of the Madras high court that prohibited the Tamil Nadu government from launching a scheme under the name of chief minister MK Stalin.
The court also castigated the petitioner, a Member of Parliament from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), C Ve Shanmugam , for singling out the state government scheme and the chief minister without challenging similar Central and state schemes bearing the name of political leaders and slapped a cost of ₹10 lakh on him to be deposited with the state government.
The court warned of contempt of court action if the petitioner failed to comply with its order and directed the state to utilise the amount in a scheme for the benefit of underprivileged sections of society.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai said, “The launching of schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon followed throughout the country….When such schemes are floated in the name of such political leaders, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner to choose only one political party and one political leader.”
It further stated, “Singling out one political party smacks of the motive of the petitioner. If the petitioner was so concerned about misuse of public funds by political parties, he could have made a challenge to all such schemes.”
The court was hearing separate appeals filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party ruling the state and the Tamil Nadu state government challenging the interim order passed by the Madras high court on July 31.
The court set aside that order and dismissed the petitions. Sending out a stern message that courts cannot be the forum for settling political scores, the bench, also comprising justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria said, “Time and again we have observed that political battles must be fought before the electorate. Courts cannot be used as a forum to settle political scores.”
The HC in its order said, “We are inclined to pass an interim order to the effect that while launching and operating government welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of respondent No.4 (DMK) shall not be included.”
The apex court held that the petition itself was misconceived and an abuse of the process of law as the petition was filed on July 21, three days after the MP moved a representation to the Election Commission of India (ECI) seeking suspension/withdrawal of DMK’s recognition. The petition in the HC failed to give any “breathing time” for the ECI to consider his plea as the top court said, “After approaching the court in such hurried manner, the petitioner has the audacity to say that the representation is not decided by ECI….”
Appearing for the DMK, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P Wilson submitted that the high court has wrongfully applied judgments of the Supreme Court to justify grant of interim stay. Rohatgi said that the top court in a chain of decisions in Common Cause v Union of India (2014, 2015), frowned upon the use of public funds for the glorification of political parties and its propaganda. Later, in subsequent decisions in 2016 and 2017, this rule was diluted by the top court by permitting photos of chief ministers, cabinet ministers and ministers in charge of the department issuing the advertisement to be published for announcing any government scheme or initiative.
Senior advocate Abhishak Manu Singhvi appearing for the state government along with advocate general PS Raman pointed out that in none of these judgments, was there a restriction on the name of political leaders being used. He supplied a list of 45 schemes floated by various state governments and Centre bearing the name of political leaders. Raman further pointed out that the petitioner, now a MP, was a Cabinet Minister during the reign of AIADMK government in the state when 23 schemes were launched in the name of Amma, as the then chief minister J Jayalalithaa was popularly called.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh appearing for the petitioner MP with advocate Balaji Srinivasan stated that the objection was only on having CM’s name and not on the operation of the scheme.
