Summary
The Supreme Court set aside an ex parte interim order of the Madras High Court restraining the State of Tamil Nadu from using the name or photograph of any living personality, former Chief Minister or party insignia while publicising the "Ungaludan Stalin" welfare-outreach scheme, withdrew the underlying writ petition to itself and dismissed it with costs of Rs. 10 lakh as an abuse of process, holding that naming schemes after political leaders is a countrywide practice and that political battles must be fought before the electorate, not in court.
Issues
- Whether the Common Cause line of decisions on government advertising prohibits a State welfare scheme from being named after a political leader.
- Whether the High Court was justified in passing an ad interim order on the day of filing, without giving the State time to file an affidavit.
- Whether a writ petition filed three days after a complaint to the Election Commission of India under Clause 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, singling out one party and one scheme, was maintainable or an abuse of process.
Provisions considered
- Clause 16A, Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968The Court observed that the power under Clause 16A is available to the Election Commission when dealing with suspension or withdrawal of recognition of a recognised political party for failure to observe the Model Code of Conduct or lawful directions of the Commission; since no Model Code was in operation in Tamil Nadu, whether the complaint was tenable at all was itself debatable, and the petitioner in any event rushed to the High Court within three days of lodging it. (¶¶ 8, 22)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe writ petition under Article 226 was held misconceived in law and an abuse of the process of law; the Court withdrew it to itself, dismissed it with costs and set aside the interim order passed in it. (¶¶ 8, 26, 27, 28)
Held
- The Common Cause decisions dealt with the use of photographs of political leaders, particularly heads of the Executive, in publicly funded advertisements; they progressively permitted photographs of the President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India, and later the Cabinet Minister or Minister in charge and the Chief Minister of the State. They do not prohibit a scheme being named after a political leader. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Launching schemes in the name of political leaders is a phenomenon followed throughout the country by all political parties. A petitioner genuinely concerned about misuse of public funds would have challenged all such schemes; singling out one scheme of one party named after one leader reflects on the petitioner's motives, as does the manner in which the petition was filed. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- A complaint to the Election Commission under Clause 16A of the Symbols Order, which concerns suspension or withdrawal of recognition for breach of the Model Code of Conduct or of the Commission's directions, was of doubtful tenability when no Model Code was in force in the State; in any case, moving the High Court within three days of the complaint, without giving the Commission a breathing period, and pleading the Commission's "failure to act" amounted to castigating the Commission. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24)
- Political battles should be fought before the electorate; courts should not be used to settle political scores between rival parties. The writ petition was therefore not only misconceived in law but an abuse of the process of law. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- The High Court's interim order, passed on the same day without granting the Advocate General's request for time to file an affidavit placing correct facts on record, was quashed and set aside. (¶¶ 9, 15, 27, 28)
Result
Appeals allowed; interim order of the High Court dated 31/07/2025 quashed and set aside; Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025 withdrawn to the Supreme Court and dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,00,000 to be deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu within one week, to be used only for welfare schemes for the underprivileged; failure to deposit within a week renders the writ petitioner liable for contempt; pending applications disposed of.