Do not use names of living personalities in govt ads: Madras HC

Hindustan Times

a day ago

The Madras high court has said that political parties cannot use names or images of any living personality, including chief ministers and ideological leaders, as well as party insignia or symbols, in government advertisements for welfare schemes. Do not use names 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.