Do not use name of living personalities in govt ads: Madras HC
A bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan barred the inclusion of 'the name of any living personality, photographs of former chief ministers or ideological leaders,' and 'party symbols, emblems, or flags of political parties,' including those of the ruling DMK in Tamil Nadu, in advertisements for government welfare schemes.
The bench passed the order on July 31 while hearing a petition filed by AIADMK Member of Parliament C Ve Shanmugam, who had sought an injunction against the DMK government's use of Chief Minister MK Stalin's name and image, as well as the images of other DMK leaders, in the State's public grievance redressal scheme 'Mudhalvarin Mugavari.'
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, who appeared for Shanmugam, told the court that using the chief minister's name and party images in a state-funded scheme violated Supreme Court directives and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014.
The court said that the use of such references in state-sponsored promotions did 'prima facie' violate multiple apex court rulings, including the latter's clarification issued in 2016 on the review petition filed in the case of State of Karnataka vs Common Cause.
In such order, the Supreme Court had clarified that while the photograph of an incumbent chief minister may be used in official government advertisements, photographs of ideological leaders or former chief ministers will prima facie violate its earlier directives aimed at curbing political misuse of public funds, the high 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,' the high court said.
It said that keeping in mind the above, it was passing an 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.'
Opposing the plea, the state's counsel, Advocate General P S Raman, had argued that the petition relied on unauthenticated materials such as unofficial printouts, which did not represent official government publications.
Raman assured the court that the government had not used the photographs of any political leaders or party symbols in its promotional materials and requested time to file a detailed affidavit along with authentic records.
Senior advocate P Wilson, who was representing the DMK, told the court the petition was politically motivated. Wilson pointed out that the petitioner belonged to the opposition and alleged that the plea was an attempt to 'malign' the ruling party's image 'under the guise of public interest.'
While recording that the State denied the petitioner's claims, the court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing government publicity. The Bench said it was 'inclined to pass an interim order' given the petitioner's apprehension that more such schemes were in the pipeline.
However, the court clarified that its present order did not interfere with the actual launch or implementation of any welfare scheme. 'We have not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of welfare schemes of the government,' the bench said.
The court also made it clear that the pendency of the petition will not restrain the Election Commission of India or other competent authorities from taking action on the basis of the petitioner's complaint.
The court is likely to hear the matter further on August 13.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear plea against Madras HC order barring use of leaders' name in welfare schemes
The Supreme Court on Monday granted an urgent hearing against a Madras high court order restraining the Tamil Nadu government from naming any government welfare schemes after any former chief ministers or ideological leaders and further disallowed depiction of party symbol to accompany such announcements. MadrasHC barred Tamil Nadu government from naming any government welfare schemes after any former chief ministers or ideological leaders (File photo) A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai agreed to hear the state's appeal on Wednesday after an urgent mentioning was made by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the state. Rohatgi said, 'This is a very unusual order of the Madras high court that requires urgent hearing,' pointing to the July 31 interim order passed while hearing a public interest litigation filed by member of parliament (MP) C V Shanmugam of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). 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 shall not be included.' As the court wished to know about the details of the order, Rohatgi said: 'According to the HC order, no scheme of government can have the name of the chief minister or any political figure. The order was passed on Thursday and we are in the process of filing an appeal. It requires urgent hearing as the high court has restrained us based on a wrong reading of judgments of this court.' 'We will have it on Friday,' CJI Gavai said, after Rohatgi pointed out that the scheme is intended for the benefit of the poor. Shanmugam in his petition before the high court challenged a June 19 order of the state government for implementing a public outreach programme having the name of chief minister MK Stalin. The scheme 'Ungaludan Stalin' was intended at taking the government's benefits and services to the doorstep of beneficiaries by organising nearly 10,000 camps at a proposed budget of ₹54.95 crore. The HC order referred to Supreme Court decisions of 2014 and 2015 in Common Cause v Union of India which laid down guidelines to regulate governments from issuing advertisements to glorify their parties using state funds. Citing these judgments, the HC said, 'The use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Minister, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court.' It noted a 2016 judgment of the top court which clarified that under certain exceptions, publication of the photograph of the incumbent CM is permissible. As the SC had formed a central committee on content regulation in government advertising, the PIL in the high court had sought a direction to this committee along with the Election Commission of India to take action against the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling party in the state under paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Uttam tears into BRS, says rank irregularities at all levels in KLIP
Hyderabad: State Irrigation Minster N Uttam Kumar Reddy on Monday disclosed findings of the Judicial Commission on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, directly blaming former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao for bypassing rules, ignoring expert warnings, and plunging the State into Rs 84,000 crore of high-interest debt. In a powerpoint presentation after the cabinet meeting, Uttam said the Commission's 660-page report, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, exposed how Telangana's most expensive project became an engineering and financial disaster due to unilateral and illegal decisions made during the BRS regime. 'We had promised the people that a judicial inquiry would be ordered into the Medigadda barrage collapse. After coming to power, we formed a Commission headed by Justice Ghose, and now that report has been submitted,' Uttam said. 'It clearly says KCR acted not as Chief Minister but as an administrative head issuing direct orders that went against institutional processes.' Quoting from the report, Minister Uttam said: 'The Commission has held that there is rank irregularity from the stage of conceptualisation of the project till the administrative approvals on March 1, 2016. These decisions were not those of the government, but of individuals.' He said the decision to shift the barrage from Tummidihatti to Medigadda was made solely by KCR, under the false pretext of water unavailability. 'The report says the reason for abandoning Tummidihatti does not appear sincere or honest,' Uttam added. The Minister reminded that even Union Minister Uma Bharti had confirmed water availability at Tummidihatti and the Central Water Commission (CWC) had approved the hydrology of the Pranahita-Chevella project in October 2014. 'But KCR's government wrote to the Centre saying there was no water, and that misrepresentation was found to be malicious by the Commission,' Uttam said. Minister Uttam revealed that an expert committee constituted by KCR's own government via G.O. Rt. No. 28 in January 2015 had recommended that building a barrage at Medigadda was unviable and not economical. 'They clearly said the barrage should be built at Vemanapally instead. That report was deliberately kept aside,' he said. 'The Commission observes that the suppression of this report was not accidental. It was done with intent to allow the CM and Irrigation Minister to go ahead with Medigadda against all expert advice,' he noted. Uttam Kumar Reddy laid out the timeline: 'The Medigadda barrage agreement was signed in 2016. The Kaleshwaram project was inaugurated in 2019. By October 21, 2023, Pillar 20 of Medigadda's Block-7 collapsed due to structural failure.' He said the Commission endorsed the NDSA's findings which cited serious planning and design flaws. 'The barrage was built on a permeable foundation, unsuitable for a storage structure. A cavity filled with soil was found instead of sand. Only 7,498 concrete samples were tested instead of the 37,000+ required,' he quoted from the report.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Kangana Ranaut slams Rahul Gandhi's ‘anti-India mindset' after SC pulls him up for remarks on Army
Following the Supreme Court's strong remarks against Rahul Gandhi over his comments against the Indian armed forces after the India-China border clashes, Bharatiya Janata Party MP Kangana Ranaut accused the Congress MP of having an "anti-India mindset" and consistently aligning with the narratives of enemy nations. Rahul Gandhi's comments date back to December 16, 2022, during the Congress's 'Bharat Jodo Yatra'.(PTI) "Rahul Gandhi always speaks against India, whether on the economy or the defence forces. He speaks in support of enemy nations. He has an anti-India mindset," Kangana Ranaut said. "So, this is a welcome move by the Supreme Court; they pulled him up. In the future, others should be mindful that they do not hurt India's honour, integrity, and morale," Ranaut said. Ranaut added that the judiciary's firm stand should serve as a warning. "It's a welcome move that they pulled him up. In the time to come, others should be mindful that they do not hurt India's honour, integrity and morale," he added. Kangana's sharp attack came a day after the Supreme Court questioned Rahul Gandhi's controversial statements about the Indian Army and Chinese aggression made during his 2022 'Bharat Jodo Yatra'. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih expressed concern over the credibility of his claim that China had occupied 2,000 square kilometres of Indian territory, stating that such remarks were unbecoming of a "true Indian". During a hearing, the top court pulled no punches in its criticism. "How do you get to know that 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory was occupied by China? What is the credible material? If you are a true indian, you would not say this when there is a conflict across borders. Can you say all this?" Justice Dutta said. The bench further questioned the choice of platform for such statements, asking why Gandhi hadn't raised these concerns in Parliament instead of on social media. "Whatever you have to say, why don't you say it in the Parliament? Why do you have to say this in the social media posts?" asked Justice Datta. Rahul Gandhi's comments Gandhi's comments date back to December 16, 2022, during a press interaction while leading the Congress's 'Bharat Jodo Yatra'. "People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh," Gandhi said. "But the Indian press doesn't ask them a question about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know," he added.
