In a significant ruling of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition that challenged the naming of a state government welfare scheme after a political leader. The case involved the "Ungaludan Stalin" scheme in Tamil Nadu, which aims to bring government services and benefits to citizens through localized camps. The Court not only quashed an interim order from the High Court of Madras but also imposed a hefty fine on the petitioner, a Member of Parliament from an opposition party, for what it deemed an abuse of the legal process.
The Genesis of the Legal Battle:
The controversy began when the Tamil Nadu government, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party, launched the "Ungaludan Stalin" scheme. The scheme was designed to address difficulties faced by citizens in accessing welfare benefits due to a lack of information, procedural complexities, and technological barriers. It involved door-to-door campaigns by volunteers to inform families about various government services and assist them with applications.
Aggrieved by the scheme's name, a sitting MP filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), arguing that using a political leader's name and image for a state-funded program amounted to political campaigning. Just three days later, without giving the ECI time to respond, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras, seeking to halt the scheme's advertisements. The High Court, in an interim order, barred the government from using the names of any living personalities, photographs of former chief ministers or ideological leaders, or party emblems in its advertisements. The DMK and the State of Tamil Nadu appealed this order to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's Stance: Misuse of Public Funds vs. Political Naming Conventions
The appellants, represented by senior counsel, argued that the interim order was passed without giving the state a proper opportunity to respond and that there is no legal prohibition on naming schemes after political leaders. They pointed to numerous instances across the country where schemes are named after political figures. Furthermore, they contended that the scheme itself was not new but merely a platform to efficiently deliver existing benefits to the public.
In response, the petitioner's counsel referred to previous Supreme Court judgments in the "Common Cause" cases, which aimed to prevent the misuse of public funds for personal or political glorification. These rulings established guidelines on the use of photographs of dignitaries like the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, and other ministers in government advertisements.
However, the Supreme Court distinguished the present case. While acknowledging the "Common Cause" rulings' focus on preventing the misuse of public funds for glorification, the Court noted that the present petition was selectively targeting a single political party and a specific scheme. The Court found this approach to be politically motivated, stating that if the petitioner was genuinely concerned about the misuse of public funds, they should have challenged all such schemes across the nation.
A Strong Rebuke and a Clear Warning:
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the petitioner's haste in approaching the High Court without waiting for the ECI to act on the complaint. It found the petitioner's claim of "failure to act on the representation" by the ECI within three days to be a deliberate attempt to "castigate" the institution.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the writ petition was not only "misconceived in law" but also a complete "abuse of the process of law." It reiterated its position that courts should not be used to settle political scores between rival parties.
The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's interim order, and took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the writ petition from the High Court to dismiss it directly. The petitioner was ordered to pay ?10,00,000 in costs, to be deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu for use in welfare schemes for the underprivileged. The Court also warned that failure to pay the fine within a week would lead to contempt of court proceedings.
