Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
The Supreme Court Wednesday set aside the Madras High Court order that stopped Tamil Nadu’s DMK government from naming a scheme after Chief Minister M K Stalin.
Stating that the petition was “misconceived in law” and amounted to “abuse of the process of law”, the bench of Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria cautioned, “Time and again, we have observed that political battles should be settled before the electoral roll and courts should not be used for this.”
The top court also made clear its displeasure with the petitioner, AIADMK leader and MP C Ve Shanmugam, for approaching it within three days of making a representation to the Election Commission of India in this regard. The bench imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the petitioner and asked him to pay it to the Tamil Nadu government, directing that the amount be spent for the welfare of the underprivileged.
The petitioner had sought a ban on the state’s use of the chief minister’s name in public outreach programmes such as Ungaludan Stalin (With You, Stalin), which he claimed violated judicial guidelines and the Election Commission’s code.
The court took into account submissions by the state government that governments of other political parties too have named schemes after their political leaders. The state referred to schemes named after ‘Amma’ in this regard. Former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa was popularly referred to as `Amma’.
A division bench of the high court had on August 1 restrained the state government from naming or rebranding any public scheme after living individuals. The court also barred the use of portraits of ideological figures or former chief ministers, and any insignia or emblem of the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in government advertisements promoting 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.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram