The Madras High Court issued an interim directive clarifying that government welfare scheme advertisements must not include the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister or ideological leader, or the symbol, emblem, or flag of any political party. The bench delivering this order comprised Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan, who emphasized adherence to principles laid down by the Supreme Court relating to neutrality and permissible use of state resources for public schemes. The order followed a petition filed by a Member of Parliament, C.Ve. Shanmugam, seeking to restrain the state government and the ruling party from naming or branding welfare initiatives after the incumbent Chief Minister and from using associated images or party insignia.
Shanmugam’s petition challenged the nomenclature of ‘Mudhalvarin Mugavari’, a government grievance redressal scheme named after the sitting Chief Minister Stalin. He contended that this naming, along with use of his photograph and the DMK party emblem in scheme advertisements, contravened judicial and statutory directives forbidding personalization of state schemes or use of imagery for partisan gain. Arguing that public funds were being deployed to create or reinforce a political persona, he alleged breach of Supreme Court and Election Commission of India guidelines.
In response, the Advocate General for the state maintained that the advertisements produced by the petitioner did not represent official government-issued publications or use public money. He asserted that genuine government advertisements are released only through the Directorate of Public Information and carry mandatory coding. He denied any misuse of state machinery, suggesting the materials shown by the petitioner were not government-funded.
Senior counsel representing the DMK government contended that the petition was politically motivated and sought to tarnish the image of the ruling party. They denied that the nomenclature of the scheme or anything else was intended or utilised as political propaganda.
Recording the submissions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in the State of Karnataka versus Common Cause case, which permitted only restricted use of the incumbent Chief Minister’s photograph in government adverts but disallowed the use of images of former Chief Ministers, ideological leaders, party symbols, or names of political persons. Based on that precedent, the Madras High Court ruled that the state must refrain from using such restricted material, even in publicity of welfare schemes.
The Court clarified it did not intend to halt the launch or operation of the welfare schemes themselves, but issued the interim directive to prevent further display of prohibited content while the case remains pending. It explicitly stated that mention of any political personality in the scheme names, party logos in scheme materials, or pictures of former CMs and party icons should not be included in official advertisements.
The interim relief will remain in effect during the pendency of the matter. The bench also made it clear that the Election Commission may proceed with action as it deems appropriate based on the petitioner’s submissions. By issuing this order, the High Court set out a legal guardrail to uphold constitutional and electoral norms regarding state neutrality and fair use of public resources.
Ultimately, while the petition remains pending, the Court’s interim ruling delivers immediate restraint on the use of personal branding in state welfare publicity, directing that government communications must avoid imagery or names associated with living or former political figures and ideological entities. The order underscores the judiciary's commitment to preserving the demarcation between state and party, and maintaining constitutional impartiality in public welfare initiatives.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.