Tamil Nadu govt can’t name welfare schemes after living persons or use party symbols, High Court says

The petitioner had sought a ban on the state’s use of Chief Minister M K Stalin’s name in public outreach programmes such as Ungaludan Stalin (With You, Stalin) and Mudhalvarin Mugavari (Chief Minister’s Address), which he claimed violated judicial guidelines and the Election Commission’s code.

Shanmugam’s counsel, senior advocate Vijay Narayan, argued that these government-funded welfare programmes featured “the name of the incumbent Chief Minister in the nomenclature of the scheme” and included “pictorial representations/photographs of certain ideological leaders and former chief ministers” affiliated with the ruling party. He further alleged that even the “party logo/emblem is being printed in the outreach programmes” — a move he said was “legally impermissible” and in direct contravention of Supreme Court rulings and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014.

In its order, the High Court 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 (DMK) shall not be included.”

The court cited previous Supreme Court rulings in Common Cause v Union of India and State of Karnataka v Common Cause, reminding that while publication of a sitting Chief Minister’s photograph may be allowed under certain exceptions, “the use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court”.

The court said, “It would not be permissible to mention the name of the living political personality in the nomenclature of the government scheme. Moreover, using the name of any ruling political party, its insignia/logo/emblem/flag also appears to be prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.”

Tamil Nadu Advocate General P S Raman opposed the plea, calling it premature and based on unauthenticated printouts. He contended that the materials cited by the petitioner “are not government publications at all” and that no such names or symbols were officially being used. Raman sought time to submit affidavits with the actual documents.

Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for the DMK, dismissed the petition as “politically motivated”, noting that the petitioner is an Opposition MP and accusing him of attempting to malign the ruling party and its leaders.

While issuing its interim directive, the Bench clarified that it had “not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of the government”. The order is confined to nomenclature and publicity materials. The judges also said that “pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India…initiating any proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner”.

The court directed all respondents, including the Election Commission, the Tamil Nadu government, and the DMK, to file counter affidavits and listed the case for further hearing on August 13, alongside a similar petition filed by another individual.