Tamil Nadu govt can't name welfare schemes after living persons or use party symbols, High Court says
The First Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan, delivered the order while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by AIADMK MP C Ve Shanmugam.
The petitioner had sought a ban on the state's use of Chief Minister M K Stalin's name in public outreach programmes such as Ungaludan Stalin (With You, Stalin) and Mudhalvarin Mugavari (Chief Minister's Address), which he claimed violated judicial guidelines and the Election Commission's code.
Shanmugam's counsel, senior advocate Vijay Narayan, argued that these government-funded welfare programmes featured 'the name of the incumbent Chief Minister in the nomenclature of the scheme' and included 'pictorial representations/photographs of certain ideological leaders and former chief ministers' affiliated with the ruling party. He further alleged that even the 'party logo/emblem is being printed in the outreach programmes' — a move he said was 'legally impermissible' and in direct contravention of Supreme Court rulings and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014.
In its order, the High Court 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 (DMK) shall not be included.'
The court cited previous Supreme Court rulings in Common Cause v Union of India and State of Karnataka v Common Cause, reminding that while publication of a sitting Chief Minister's photograph may be allowed under certain exceptions, 'the use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Ministers, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court'.
The 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.'
Tamil Nadu Advocate General P S Raman opposed the plea, calling it premature and based on unauthenticated printouts. He contended that the materials cited by the petitioner 'are not government publications at all' and that no such names or symbols were officially being used. Raman sought time to submit affidavits with the actual documents.
Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for the DMK, dismissed the petition as 'politically motivated', noting that the petitioner is an Opposition MP and accusing him of attempting to malign the ruling party and its leaders.
While issuing its interim directive, the Bench clarified that it had 'not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of the government'. The order is confined to nomenclature and publicity materials. The judges also said that 'pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India…initiating any proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner'.
The court directed all respondents, including the Election Commission, the Tamil Nadu government, and the DMK, to file counter affidavits and listed the case for further hearing on August 13, alongside a similar petition filed by another individual.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
32 minutes ago
- News18
NEET UG 2025: SC Declines To Consider Plea Alleging Errors In Question Paper
Last Updated: NEET-UG 2025: The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a plea asserting that there were 'serious errors" in three questions from the NEET-UG 2025 examination. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar advised the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant high court. The National Testing Agency conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in both government and private institutions nationwide. The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. He stated that these questions affected the petitioner's score by 13 marks. 'These (three) questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views," the counsel of the petitioner argued. The bench noted that the exam had already concluded. 'You withdraw this and go to the high court," the bench suggested, emphasising not wanting to deny the petitioner any remedy. The counsel requested that the Supreme Court appoint a panel of experts to review the questions within three days and consider their opinions. After the bench expressed unwillingness to entertain the plea, the petitioner's counsel decided to withdraw it. On July 4, the Supreme Court also declined to entertain a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results due to an alleged error in one of the questions. view comments First Published: 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.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
39 minutes ago
- Business Standard
HC bars Tamil Nadu govt from naming welfare schemes after living persons
The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to refrain from naming state welfare schemes after living individuals and using political party symbols or photographs of political leaders in related publicity material. The court passed the interim order in response to a public interest litigation that questioned the naming of schemes after Chief Minister M K Stalin, according to a report from The Indian Express. Initiatives such as Ungaludan Stalin and Nalam Kaakkum Stalin were specifically cited, with the petitioner arguing that such branding misuses public resources for political promotion, the report further added. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice P D Audikesavalu, observed that the use of names or images of living persons in government scheme promotions goes against the principles of neutrality and fairness in public administration. Government says pamphlets not official Counsel representing the state argued that the pamphlets mentioned in the petition were not official government publications. The defence also stated that the schemes themselves had public welfare objectives and that the challenge was politically motivated. Despite these claims, the court issued a directive restraining the state from continuing such promotional practices. It, however, clarified that it is not halting the implementation of welfare schemes, only regulating how they are named and advertised. Party symbols and photographs also banned The interim order extends to the use of political party logos and photographs of living leaders in any form of scheme-related communication, including banners, posters, and advertisements. The court has granted 10 days for the respondents, including the Election Commission and relevant state departments, to file their replies. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 13.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
NHRC seeks action taken report on caste-derogatory village, locality names across India
In a significant move aimed at upholding constitutional values of equality and dignity, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued notices to the Department of Posts and the Principal Secretaries of Urban Development and Panchayati Raj Departments across all States and Union Territories, calling for a detailed Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the continued use of caste-indicative and derogatory names for villages, localities, settlements, and streets across the country. The matter was brought before the NHRC through a complaint dated July 10, 2025, and considered by the Commission on July 28. The complainant had raised serious concerns about the persistence of offensive nomenclature that reflects caste-based discrimination. The Commission noted that such names violate the constitutional ideals of equality and human dignity, and contribute to the continued social stigma faced by the Scheduled Castes, even after over 7 decades of Independence. Taking cognisance under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, a Bench presided over by NHRC Member Priyank Kanoongo directed the issuance of a formal notice. The Commission emphasised that the NHRC is empowered under the Act to investigate such matters with the authority of a civil court. The NHRC stated: 'The complainant has urged that such names be reviewed and renamed, as they are offensive and contrary to the constitutional ideals of equality and human dignity.' The Commission also cited several key legal and administrative references to support its directive. These include a 1990 circular from the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment instructing all governments to discontinue the use of the word 'Harijan', and a 1982 Ministry of Home Affairs directive banning the use of both 'Harijan' and 'Girijan.' States like Odisha, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi, Punjab, and Kerala have already taken steps to enforce constitutionally-appropriate terminology. Further, the NHRC highlighted the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in Manju Devi vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia & Others, which observed that caste-referential terms such as 'Harijan' and 'Dhobi' could constitute social insult or abuse. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly Section 3(1)(u), also criminalises the use of caste-based slurs, naming terms like 'Chamar', 'Bhangi', and 'Mehtar' as punishable offenses. The Commission also referenced a 2024 Supreme Court order in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) directing the government to consider removing casteist terms such as 'Chamar', 'Kanjar', 'Chuhra', and 'Bhangi' from official records. In its directive, the NHRC has asked all concerned authorities to compile and submit a list of towns, villages, panchayats, and other public spaces that still carry caste-indicative or derogatory names. It has also requested a report on the measures being taken to rename or remove such terms. The deadline for submission is four weeks from the date of notice. The Commission aims to address systemic discrimination embedded in geographical and administrative nomenclature, and to ensure that public spaces reflect the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
