Tamil Nadu Govt Moves SC After Madras HC Restrains State From Naming Schemes After MK Stalin
The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court, challenging a recent order of the Madras HC that restrained the state from using CM MK Stalin's name for welfare schemes.
The Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court on Monday, challenging a recent order of the Madras High Court that restrained the state from using Chief Minister MK Stalin's name or that of former CM M Karunanidhi for naming government welfare schemes.
The plea was urgently mentioned today before a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who is representing the state.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter on Wednesday.
The state government argues that the naming of schemes is a matter of executive prerogative and forms part of its outreach to the public.
The Supreme Court's upcoming hearing is expected to weigh in on the constitutional limits of political branding in government initiatives.
Madras HC Ruling
The controversy stems from the Madras High Court's directive barring the government from branding welfare initiatives with political leaders' names, specifically citing the 'Ungaludan Stalin" ('Stalin With You") scheme.
The High Court, however, clarified that its order did not halt the implementation of the scheme itself.
view comments
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Madras High Court rejects plea to permit only Vaishnavite Brahmins to run prasadam stall at Devarajaswamy Temple
The Madras High Court on Monday (August 11, 2025) refused to accept the argument that only Vaishnavite Brahmins could be permitted to operate a prasadam (sanctified food) stall, also known as Pathu Kadai, on the Devarajaswamy Temple premises in Kancheepuram district. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh dismissed a writ petition filed against the deletion of the words, 'belonging to Vaishnavite Brahmin community,' from the eligibility conditions prescribed in an auction notification issued for operating the prasadam stall at the temple. The judge recorded the submissions of Special Government Pleader (Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments) department N.R.R. Arun Natarajan and the counsel for the temple administration K.V. Babu that the temple management had not compromised any of the Agama practices. He pointed out that the writ petitioner L. Ravi, 71, a resident of West Mambalam in Chennai, had filed the case on the sole ground that only Vaishnavite Brahmins had been running the prasadam stalls for several years and hence, that practice must continue without any hindrance. The judge said, though the July 31, 2025, auction notification does not mention the words 'Vaishnavite Brahmins,' it does state that the applicants must be familiar with the customs of the temple as well as its Agamas, besides possessing five years of experience in preparing prasadam at a Vaishnavite temple. Further, referring to an observation made by Justice B. Pugalenthi of the High Court on August 12, 2024, that the term 'Vaishnavites' refers to all those who worship Lord Vishnu and not just the Brahmins, the judge said, he does not find any reason to order that only Vaishnavite Brahmins could run the prasadam stall. Though the writ petitioner had sought to restrain the temple management from conducting the auction on Wednesday (August 13), the judge refused to pass any such orders, and made it clear that the auction could take place as per the conditions stipulated in the July 31, 2025, notification. In his affidavit, the petitioner, who claimed to be an ardent devotee of Lord Devarajaswamy, had stated that the right to run the prasadam stall was given to a person who was not a Vaishnavite Brahmin in 2002, and the latter began using onion, garlic, and drumstick, which were prohibited ingredients in the preparation of the prasadam. Claiming that the person had caused 'anaacharam' (spoiling the sanctity) by using prohibited ingredients, the petitioner insisted that the right to run the prasadam stall near the Vahana Mandapam inside the temple must be given only to a Vaishnavite Brahmin.
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Is a ‘potentiality of abuse' of BNS Section 152 a ground to declare the law unconstitutional, asks the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) asked if 'potentiality of abuse' by the state of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which punishes 'acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', could be a ground to declare the law itself unconstitutional. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi raised the question to senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the Foundation of Independent Journalism and Siddharth Varadarajan, one of the founding editors of the online news portal The Wire, who is facing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 152 and other offences under the BNS at Morigaon Police Station, Assam, for the publication of a news article. The petition submitted that the arrest of Mr. Varadarajan and/or others was 'imminent'. The Bench protected Mr. Varadarajan and the members of the Foundation from any coercive action by the police. It issued notice to the Union government and the State of Assam, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while noting that a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India had issued notice on a separate petition, filed by S.G. Vombatkere, identically challenging Section 152 a few days ago, on August 8. Ms. Ramakrishnan argued that Section 152 of the BNS, though worded differently and avoiding the term 'sedition', was 'in essence' the colonial sedition provision of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). BNS had replaced the IPC at a time when the legality of Section 124A was considered suspect by the apex court, and had been referred to a Constitution Bench for judicial scrutiny and an authoritative pronouncement. The senior counsel submitted that Section 152 was vaguely worded, its ambiguity cloaking an immense capacity to chill free speech, especially of journalists. At this point, Justice Bagchi agreed with Ms. Ramakrishnan that vagueness in a penal provision was a valid ground to challenge it. He referred to how the apex court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for its vague terminology, which indirectly worked to aid authorities to use arrest as a tool to crush dissent. Justice Bagchi said the apex court's judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case had clearly defined that sedition could not be invoked under Section 124A until there was clear proof that words or action had incited violence. 'The acts which come within Section 124A and Section 152, by way of comparative interpretation, would be covered by the ratio of the Kedar Nath Singh verdict that unless there is a clear threat to unity and sovereignty, the offence [of sedition] need not be attracted,' Justice Bagchi observed. Justice Kant said a general list of acts endangering sovereignty could not be prepared by the court; it would depend on a case by case basis 'For example, mere political dissent cannot endanger sovereignty,' Justice Kant said. Again, on the issue of the vagueness of Section 152, Justice Kant indicated that being too specific would also be an invitation for trouble. 'Inviting the Legislature to define 'sovereignty' would be a big danger,' Justice Kant remarked. Mr. Mehta asked whether a challenge to a provision could be used as a ground to gain anticipatory bail or seek the quashing of an FIR under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Kant responded by asking Mr. Mehta whether custodial interrogation was necessary in the case of journalists. 'When media persons get entangled, it is usually something they wrote or a programme aired, etc… These are matters which do not require custodial interrogation,' Justice Kant addressed the law officer. Mr. Mehta replied that journalists could not be considered a 'separate class' while applying the provisions of the criminal law. 'No, but we are on the balancing of their [journalists'] fundamental right to speech against your [the state's] right to investigate and maintain public order,' Justice Bagchi clarified to Mr. Mehta.
Scroll.in
6 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Kerala moves SC against governor's appointment of interim VCs at two universities
The Kerala government on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court challenging Governor Rajendra Arlekar's decision to appoint Ciza Thomas and K Sivaprasad as interim vice-chancellors of the Kerala University of Digital Sciences and the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Onmanorama reported. The state government has submitted in its petition that the appointments, made by the governor in his capacity as the ex-officio chancellor of state universities, bypassed the procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court. It added that the governor made the decision unilaterally without consulting the government. The case stems from a notification issued by the former governor on November 27, 2024, appointing Thomas and Sivaprasad as interim vice-chancellors of the digital university and the technological university. On May 19, a single bench of the Kerala High Court struck down both appointments but allowed the incumbents to continue until May 27 to avoid disruption. A division bench of the High Court later upheld the ruling, saying the governor could appoint temporary vice-chancellors for only up to six months, and only on the basis of recommendations from the state government. The court also directed the government to propose names of qualified candidates, as prescribed by the University Grants Commission, for temporary appointments until permanent vice-chancellors were selected. The government then submitted a panel of three nominees for each post. However, instead of appointing from the panel, the governor approached the Supreme Court, Onmanorama reported. On July 31, the Supreme Court said the Kerala governor can appoint temporary vice-chancellors to both universities until permanent appointments are made, The Indian Express reported. While issuing the notification for the reappointment of Thomas and Sivaprasad on August 1, Arlekar cited the Supreme Court order. The Kerala government, in its petition, contended that the court order also specified that such a notification must be issued in accordance with Section 13(7) of the Kerala Technology University Act and Section 11(10) of the Digital University Act. These provisions require the appointment of temporary vice-chancellors from a panel recommended by the Kerala government, which was not followed, the state government submitted, according to Onmanorama . In 2023, the Kerala government had attempted to remove the governor as the chancellor of state universities, with the Assembly passing a bill to that effect. This was done amid a clash between the government and former Governor Arif Mohammed Khan. Khan had referred the legislation to the president, who has not yet granted it assent. In May 2024, the Kerala High Court cancelled four nominations made by Khan to the senate of the University of Kerala and said that his role as the chancellor did not allow him 'unbridled power'.
