SC sets aside Madras HC order asking DMK govt not to use names, photos of CM's in welfare schemes
NEW DELHI: The
Supreme Court
on Wednesday quashed a
Madras high court
order that had restrained the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government from using names and photographs of present and former chief ministers in welfare schemes.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria also imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on AIADMK leader C Ve Shanmugam for filing the petition in the Madras High Court.
The apex court observed that the plea challenging the use of the chief minister's name in Tamil Nadu's welfare schemes was "unwarranted" and amounted to "abuse of process of the law".
You Can Also Check:
Delhi AQI
|
Weather in Delhi
|
Bank Holidays in Delhi
|
Public Holidays in Delhi
Earlier, the Madras High Court on July 31 had restrained the Tamil Nadu government from naming any new or rebranded public welfare schemes after living persons.
It had further prohibited the use of portraits of former chief ministers, ideological leaders, or any Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (
DMK
) insignia, emblem, or flag in advertisements promoting such schemes.
The order was passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by AIADMK MP C Ve Shanmugam.
Shanmugam had moved the High Court challenging the naming and promotion of the state's public outreach initiative titled 'Ungaludan Stalin' (With You, Stalin), arguing that it went against established norms.
While passing the order, the high court had clarified that the ruling did not prevent the Tamil Nadu government from launching, implementing, or operating any welfare schemes.
It had, however, stated that the restrictions would apply specifically to the 'nomenclature and promotional content associated with such schemes'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC says multiple documents for citizenship in Bihar SIR are voter-friendly
The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the availability of multiple documents to prove citizenship under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls was 'voter-friendly rather than restrictive.' Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation during a hearing on petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's (ECI's) June 24 directive ordering the SIR. Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for one of the petitioners, had raised concerns about the exclusionary nature of the verification exercise. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi is hearing multiple petitions contesting the ECI's directive, which mandates that voters not listed in the 2003 electoral roll must furnish documents to prove citizenship. Individuals born after December 2004 are also required to submit citizenship proof of both parents, with additional conditions if a parent is a foreign national. The court noted that the SIR in Bihar permits any of 11 documents to be submitted to establish citizenship, whereas the earlier summary revision in Jharkhand allowed only seven documents for identity verification. While acknowledging concerns around Aadhaar exclusion, Justice Bagchi said the broader set of documents available in Bihar makes the process 'voter-friendly rather than restrictive.' Singhvi, however, questioned the "compelling need" to conduct the SIR in such a short timeframe, arguing that it could lead to mass voter exclusion. He pointed out that many women in Bihar lack matriculation or educational certificates issued by recognised boards, which are among the 11 approved documents. Legal scope of ECI's powers debated Justice Bagchi highlighted that Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act grants the ECI some flexibility to conduct a special revision 'in such manner as it may think fit,' subject to limitations. He posed a question to the legal counsels on whether this provision gave the ECI 'residuary discretion' to introduce additions such as enumeration forms or extra documentation for the revision process. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also appearing for the petitioners, countered that Section 21(3) 'cannot take away my right to adult suffrage under Article 326 at any cost,' nor the right to vote under Section 62 of the RP Act. 'This is a battle between a constitutional entitlement and a constitutional right,' Justice Bagchi remarked. Allegations of EC website changes after Rahul Gandhi's remarks Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), submitted that the ECI removed the searchable list of electoral rolls from its website after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi accused the poll body of aiding 'vote theft' on August 4. 'The searchable list was available till August 4,' Bhushan told the court. The Bench also clarified that it would not take up matters related to the SIR in West Bengal, as the state Assembly elections are scheduled for 2026. 'Bengal can wait. Nothing is happening now,' the court said. The hearing is expected to continue on Thursday.
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
New three-judge SC bench to hear stray dog case on Aug 14
New Delhi, After widespread protests across the country following a top court verdict on relocation of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR, a new three-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear the suo motu case on Thursday. New three-judge SC bench to hear stray dog case on Aug 14 A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria will hear the matter. The directions to permanently relocate all strays from streets to shelters "at the earliest" were passed by a bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan on August 11. When some petitioners in another stray dogs-related case mentioned their plea while referring to the August 11 verdict before the Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, he said he "will look into it". On August 11, a bench of Justices Pardiwala and Mahadevan observed instances of dog bites had given rise to an "extremely grim" situation and ordered the permanent relocation of all strays in Delhi-NCR "at the earliest". On Wednesday, the lawyer referred to a May 2024 order passed by a bench led by Justice J K Maheshwari relegating petitions relating to the stray dog issue to respective high courts. The plea by Conference for Human Rights claims the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001 mandating regular sterilisation and immunisation programmes for stray dogs to curtail their growing population are not being complied with. In its August 11 ruling, the apex court also said dog shelters will have to be augmented over time and directed Delhi authorities to start with creating shelters of around 5,000 canines within six to eight weeks. Besides, the bench warned of strict action against an individual or organisation in case of any kind of obstruction in the relocation drive that might also prompt the court to initiate contempt proceedings. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bihar SIR is a battle between EC's power over polls and citizens' right to vote: SC
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar's electoral rolls is a battle between the Election Commission of India's 'power' over elections and the ordinary citizen's right to be named in electoral rolls, and to be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday (August 13, 2025). Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant hearing petitions against the SIR, observed that poll-bound Bihar was in the middle of a contest between Article 324, which empowers the Election Commission (EC) to control elections, and the constitutional right of adult suffrage enshrined in Article 326 of the Constitution. Bihar SIR row hearing highlights on August 13, 2025 'Casual removal of voting rights' The judge's observation was in response to arguments raised by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan that the procedure of sending pre-filled enumeration forms to electors, only to later delete 65 lakh of them from the electoral roll without any prior enquiry or physical hearing — that too, with just two months left for the Assembly election in November — was, to say the least, a 'casual way of doing away with citizens' right to vote'. 'An elector means someone who is already in the electoral roll. The enumeration form, indicative documents are just figments of the imagination of the EC. There is no such procedure in the Representation of the People Act. I have a statutory right to remain in the electoral roll. The procedure for removal from the electoral roll is 'absolutely strict' as intended by the Parliament. Removal would only be subsequent to an enquiry, even for one elector. It is the concept of the 'little man' laid down in the Supreme Court by Justice Krishna Iyer… Who gave the EC power to do this, under which law and what authority?' Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted. EC's discretionary power Justice Bagchi referred to the 'elbow room' provided to the EC under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which says that the EC can conduct a 'special revision' in 'such manner as it may think fit'. 'Does this provision give the EC some residuary discretion to introduce elements like enumeration forms, additional indicative documents?' Justice Bagchi quizzed the petitioners. However, Mr. Sankaranarayanan responded that Section 21(3) only contemplated a special revision of 'any one constituency or a part of a constituency'. 'Can the provision be used to change the electoral rolls of the entire country from a time of your own choice? Does it authorise EC to embark on an en masse revision of the electoral rolls across the country?' the senior advocate responded. Section 21(3) was meant to be resorted to only in 'exceptional circumstances', he said. Summarising Section 21(3), Justice Bagchi said that it authorised the EC to devise procedures for special revision of the electoral roll in case of exceptional circumstances like a natural disaster. 'Otherwise, the EC has to strictly follow Rules 4 to 24 of the Registration of Electors Rules,' Justice Bagchi said. Voter inclusive vs exclusionary Justice Bagchi and Mr. Singhvi debated on whether giving citizens an option to choose from as many as 11 'indicative' documents to prove their citizenship and find their way back to the electoral roll could be considered 'voter-inclusive' rather than 'voter-exclusionary', as argued by the petitioners. The judge pointed out that earlier summary revisions provided a choice of only seven documents. Mr. Singhvi, however, said the list of 11 documents was 'impressive, but hollow'. They were either irrelevant, non-existent, or had minimum coverage in Bihar, he said, noting that only 1% of Bihar's residents has a passport. Most women in the State do not have matriculation certificates, Mr. Singhvi said, adding that 87% had Aadhaar, which was not included as one of the EC's 11 approved documents. Justice Kant said the central civil services were mostly populated by people from Bihar. 'I am not talking about those few. I am talking about the poor and marginal population of Bihar who live in flood-prone, poverty-stricken and rural areas… The EC says these documents are indicative of your citizenship, but they have only exclusionary value,' Mr. Singhvi submitted. 'EC's malafide intentions' So far, he said, the SIR has only witnessed the 'de facto deletion of electors'. 'The SIR policy is to presumptively exclude the entire mass of electors in Bihar since 2003 and then put the onus on them to come with any of the indicative documents to prove their citizenship... These are people who have voted in five to 10 elections since 2003, and you have deleted 65 lakh of them without any enquiry, physical interviews, verification or giving them an opportunity to produce documents,' Mr. Singhvi said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the 'malafide' of the EC was evident from its haste in conducting the SIR, its refusal to accept Aadhaar or voter ID cards, its refusal to publish the names of the 65 lakh deleted voters and the specific reasons for their exclusion, and the removal of the mechanism to search for names in the draft electoral roll after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's press conference on the issue.
