Madras High Court Bars Use Of Living Leaders' Names In Government Schemes
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government that while launching and operating welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag shall not be included.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice M M Shrivatsava and Justice Sunder Mohan passed the interim order on Thursday on a petition filed by AIADMK MP C.Ve.Shanmugam and advocate Iniyan.
In his petition, Shanmugam sought to restrain the state government from introducing/rebranding any scheme in the name of any living personality pending disposal of his Writ Petition.
He also sought a direction to the Election Commission of India and the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising to take necessary action against the DMK under Paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and consequently forbear the state government from using the name "Stalin" in relation to the activities of the scheme emanating from G.O. (Ms) No. 390, Public (Mudhalvarin Mugavari) Department, dated 19.06.2025 and thus render justice.
In its order, the bench made it clear that it has not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of the government.
The bench said on prima facie considerations, it finds that the prayer for the interim relief has been made on the apprehension that the state is proceeding to launch many welfare schemes on the same line as the advertisement under challenge in this petition.
The bench said the Supreme court has issued successive directives from time to time regulating the content of government advertisements. In a clarificatory order passed in a review, the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Vs Common Cause and others permitted certain exceptions to the directive issued in the case of Common Cause Vs Union of India.
As per the said order, publication of the photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister was permissible. The use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Minister, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court, the bench added.
The bench 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 bench added.
The bench said pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India or the authorities in initiating any proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner.
The bench posted to August 13, further hearing of the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
RTI, though being implemented, should be made fully operational, says former Union Minister
It is not just enough to implement the Right To Information (RTI) Act, but it should be made fully operational, said former Union Minister Sudarsana Natchiappan. Speaking at the conference organised by the Tamil Nadu RTI Activist Movement here on Sunday, he added that when he was the chairman of the Parliamentary standing committee, he recommended that no fee be charged for seeking RTI information. 'I suggested granting information only upon request through a written letter, but eventually it was not accepted and now fee is being charged for RTI information,' he added. Some government departments seek an exemption from providing information under RTI Act citing government secrets and personal issues of individuals, he stated. Mr. Natchiappan noted that in the age of Artificial Intelligence, there were no secrets. 'All information can be obtained using a mobile phone. A news report states that China had occupied 10,000 of Indian territory, where houses and military installations had been built. On what basis the news agency released this information, noting that it could be found simply by using a mobile phone. There are no secrets anymore. All information is on the internet, and one can get information from the website of any government department,' he added. Mr. Natchiappan mentioning a Supreme Court judge's statement about patriotism, he said that judges were accountable to the people and thereby, should deliver verdicts for the people. 'Their salaries and benefits are also paid with public tax money, as are those of MPs and MLAs. Therefore, people should question everyone,' he added. Stating that the GST law was cruel, he said that they collect a tax of ₹7 for idly. 'The GST tax system generates an income of up to ₹10 lakh crore per day. 40% of this tax comes from those living below the poverty line. When people ask for tax information, should they not be given an account? The Right to Information Act has brought about many changes.' K. Hakeem, an RTI activist and one of the organisers, said that the event was a message to the government that people, by arming the RTI, could change anything and everything. 'As a prelude to what we proclaim, we are to send 5,000 RTIs seeking information from various departments of the government,' he added.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
No claims or objections over Bihar draft roll submitted by any political party, says ECI
The Election Commission of India on Sunday reiterated that no political party has submitted any claim or objection regarding the draft electoral rolls in Bihar. Between August 1 and August 10, not a single claim or objection has been received from any political party, according to data released by the EC.(HT Photo) More than a week ago, the poll body had asked to submit claims and objections to fix any errors in the draft electoral roll, which was published on August 1. Between August 1 and August 10, not a single claim or objection has been received from any political party, according to data released by the EC. Amid the escalating row over the special intensive revision of the electoral roll in Bihar, the poll body has repeatedly affirmed that no eligible voter will be left out, and no ineligible voter will be included in the final electoral roll. In a daily bulletin on the SIR of the electoral roll in Bihar, the EC said that it has received 8,341 claims and objections directly from electors regarding the draft roll till August 10. Meanwhile, the poll body has received 46,588 forms from new electors who have attained 18 years of age or above. The ECI said that according to the rules, the claims and objections are to be disposed of by the concerned Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer (ERO/AERO) after the expiry of seven days. "As per SIR orders, no name can be deleted from the draft list published on 1st August 2025 without passing a speaking order by the ERO/AERO after conducting an enquiry and after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity," the daily bulletin added. The opposition INDIA bloc has been heavily protesting against the SIR of the electoral rolls in Bihar, alleging that the process could result in the deletion of a large number of voters. They alleged that the exercise is an "attack on democracy". The opposition leaders have also protested in the Parliament since the beginning of the monsoon session, demanding a discussion on the Bihar SIR exercise. Congress MP and Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday escalated his attack on the ECI, levelling allegations of "vote theft" against the poll body. He alleged that the elections are "choreographed". Presenting research data from a Karnataka constituency, Gandhi alleged "vote chori" of over 1 lakh votes. He made a massive claim that the ECI "colluded with the BJP to steal elections".
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872'
There were two recent judgments in terror cases–the 2006 Mumbai train blasts and the 2008 Malegaon blasts judgments. The high court verdict acquitting 12 people for the train blasts (7/11) called the torture meted out to them as 'barbaric' and 'inhuman'–the use of the judgment as a precedent in cases of MCOCA was stayed by the Supreme Court while not interfering with the high court's findings on the men's innocence. The trial court in the Malegaon case said there was a strong suspicion, but no legal proof against the seven accused it acquitted, citing reasons including the lack of procedure followed by the prosecution. Sadaf Modak speaks with advocates Yug Chaudhry and Payoshi Roy, who represented the accused in the train blasts case, about procedures and safeguards in terror probes. While drafting the Indian Evidence Act, James Fitzjames Stephen had decreed confessions to police officers as inadmissible. This holds equally true today and even the new criminal laws bar the use of confessions and witness statements made before police officers. The investigation in the train blast case is a sad comment on how little policing has changed since 1872, despite the upgrade in resources and technique. In this case, torture was the investigative tool of choice whether it be by obtaining false confessions, or coerced signatures on make-believe recovery /seizure panchnamas concocted in the police station. Superior officers endorsed the use of torture, and often threatened the prisoners with it if they did not cooperate or if they complained to the judges. Remand judges and later the trial judge pretended that there were no signs of torture even when it was staring them in the face. It appears that investigating officers resorting to such fabrication are enabled by the judicial latitude they are assured of receiving in terror cases. The failure therefore is not one of technique or manner of probe but a crisis of impunity. The burden lies not only on courts but also on the State to strictly monitor these investigations and pull up erring officers. This is a case where the High Court has found that the police have tortured the accused to procure confessions and destroyed evidence of CDR that would exonerate the accused. Instead of immediately instituting a wide-ranging review of this botched investigation, the state has denied its falsity. This attitude is a disservice to the victims who deserve an honest investigation, like the high court itself observed, that there is no greater betrayal of victims of terror crimes than fabricated investigations. This judgment should serve as a clarion call to the political leadership that short-cuts in terror investigations are unacceptable. At present, sanction and prior approval for MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) prosecution are given by an officer of the DIG Rank. When a terror offence of this magnitude is committed, officers at the highest level supervise the investigation. Seeking sanction from the DIG or the DGP of the state, who has been actively monitoring the investigation, is like an appeal from Ceaser to Ceaser's wife. In the 7/11 case, the approval for Act was granted without looking at the chargesheets, which allows DCPs to record confessions. One of the reasons the high court rejected the confessions is because prior approval was given without application of mind. Even under UAPA, sanction is sought from an authority appointed by the Central or state government. These safeguards have been reduced to a nullity. The authority granting sanction must be independent and quasi-judicial and must be able to scrutinise the material independently. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code and now Section 230 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita penalises giving of false evidence and fabricating evidence with the intent to procure a conviction in a capital case. It is punishable with life imprisonment. It is time this law is implemented. Responsible police officers of the highest to the lowest rank must be prosecuted under the law. Police officers cannot be prosecuted for failing to collect sufficient evidence or if a prosecution fails to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, in a case such as the 7/11 blasts where officers have lied on oath about recording contemporaneous confessions, where there is stark evidence of brutal torture, where officers have deliberately destroyed the accused's CDR despite repeated applications by the defence for the CDR knowing that would exonerate the accused–such criminal action from the custodians of the law must be prosecuted under the law. If this is not done, there will be no acknowledgement by the State that they have failed the victims, failed society and undermined national security.
