DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM V. THIRU. C. VE. SHANMUGAM 2025 INSC 976:

DATE: 06.08.2026

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N.V. Anjaria

FACTS:

The dispute arises from the Government of Tamil Nadu’s issuance of G.O. (Ms) No. 390, Public (Mudhalvarin Mugavari) Department, dated 19 June 2025, launching the “Ungaludan Stalin” (“Yours Stalin”) scheme. The scheme aimed to address public difficulties in availing welfare benefits due to lack of awareness, procedural complexities, and technological challenges. It proposed holding 10,000 localized camps across the State, with volunteers visiting every household to distribute pamphlets detailing available schemes and eligibility criteria, assist with documentation, and particularly register eligible women left out from the earlier phase of the Kalaignar Mahalir Urimal Thittam (KMUT) scheme. The G.O. detailed arrangements for door-to-door campaigns, training of volunteers, and registration of applications on the KMUT mobile app.

Aggrieved by the naming and promotion of the scheme, which prominently featured the Chief Minister’s name, respondent no. 1, a Member of Parliament from an opposition party—filed a representation to the Election Commission of India on 18 July 2025 under Clause 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. Alleging inaction by the ECI and continued violation of constitutional principles, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025 before the Madras High Court. On 31 July 2025, the Division Bench issued an interim order restraining inclusion of the name of any living personality, photograph of former Chief Ministers or ideological leaders, and any party insignia, emblem, or flag in advertisements for government welfare schemes, while clarifying that it was not interfering with the schemes’ implementation.

ISSUES:

The main issue was whether the Government of Tamil Nadu’s “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme, named after the sitting Chief Minister, violated constitutional principles and Supreme Court guidelines against personal glorification of political leaders and misuse of public funds for political promotion. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Madras High Court was justified in issuing an interim order prohibiting the use of the name or image of any living personality, former Chief Ministers, ideological leaders, or party symbols in advertisements for government welfare schemes without first giving the State and political party an opportunity to respond.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and the DMK party, quashed the Madras High Court’s interim order dated 31 July 2025, and dismissed Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025 with costs of Rs.10,00,000 to be deposited for welfare schemes for the underprivileged. The Court held that the petition was misconceived in law, an abuse of process, and motivated by political considerations.

The Court found that the High Court passed its interim order without affording the State or the political party sufficient opportunity to place the correct facts on record, despite the Advocate General’s request for time. The allegations in the writ petition were based on unauthenticated documents, and the State had categorically denied using photographs of leaders or party symbols in connection with the scheme. The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no legal prohibition on naming schemes after political leaders, and similar practices occur across the country under governments of different parties. Singling out one scheme from one political party, while ignoring numerous similar schemes, demonstrated selective targeting and cast doubt on the writ petitioner’s bona fides.

Further, the Court observed that the petitioner rushed to the High Court just three days after filing a representation to the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Clause 16A of the Election Symbols Order, 1968, without allowing the ECI reasonable time to act. The Model Code of Conduct was not in force, raising doubts about the maintainability of the representation itself. The Court criticized the petitioner for making statements implying ECI inaction within such a short period, which amounted to castigating the institution. Reinforcing that political disputes should be resolved before the electorate rather than through courts, the Court concluded that the petition was a misuse of judicial process aimed at settling political scores.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the Supreme Court’s firm stance against the misuse of judicial forums for settling political disputes. While the respondent sought to frame the “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme as a breach of constitutional principles and an attempt at political glorification, the Court found no substantive legal basis to support these claims. The Court underscored that naming government schemes after political leaders is a long-standing practice across parties and jurisdictions, and cannot be selectively targeted without consistent application of the same standard to all similar cases nationwide. The fact that the High Court acted without giving the State a chance to respond, and that the allegations were based on unauthenticated documents, further weakened the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.

The decision also reinforces procedural fairness and institutional respect. By approaching the High Court only three days after filing a representation with the Election Commission, and then alleging inaction, the petitioner effectively bypassed the proper adjudicatory process and cast unwarranted aspersions on the ECI. The Supreme Court treated this as a political tactic rather than a genuine public interest intervention, stressing that courts should not become arenas for partisan battles. In dismissing the petition with costs, the Court not only discouraged similar politically motivated litigation but also directed the penalty towards welfare initiatives, ensuring the outcome tangibly benefits the public the scheme was meant to serve.