SUPREME COURT WARNS AGAINST USING JUDICIARY FOR POLITICAL VENDETTAS, URGES PARTIES TO BATTLE BEFORE ELECTORATE:

On August 6, the Supreme Court emphatically reiterated that courts must not be used as a platform for political parties to settle their disputes. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria delivered this observation while setting aside an interim order of the Madras High Court, which had restrained the use of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin's name in a government welfare scheme.

The High Court had passed the interim order in response to a public interest litigation filed by AIADMK Member of Parliament C. Ve. Shanmugham. The Supreme Court, however, found the petitioner’s conduct questionable, pointing out that the challenge was directed only at the welfare scheme initiated by the current Tamil Nadu government led by the DMK, despite the fact that naming schemes after political leaders is a widespread and long-standing practice across the country.

The bench noted submissions made by the DMK and the Tamil Nadu Government, which highlighted that similar naming practices were followed during the AIADMK regime, with many schemes being launched under the names of their leaders. Observing this context, the Court concluded that the PIL appeared to be politically motivated, aimed at discrediting a specific party rather than addressing a genuine legal or constitutional concern.

In its order, the Supreme Court made it clear that the judicial process should not be weaponised for political vendettas. The bench remarked that political disputes ought to be resolved in the democratic arena, before the electorate and not in the courtrooms. Emphasising this, the Court stated that it has consistently held the view that the judiciary must not be misused as a battleground for political scoring between parties.

Setting aside the Madras High Court’s interim order, the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs.10 lakh on the petitioner, directing him to deposit the amount with the state government within one week. It further directed that this sum should be utilised for the benefit of welfare schemes meant for the underprivileged sections of society. The Court also warned that failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time would result in contempt proceedings being initiated against Shanmugham.

This case adds to a series of recent matters where the Supreme Court has firmly discouraged the politicisation of legal proceedings. On July 21, a similar warning was issued when the bench refused to entertain a petition challenging the quashing of a criminal case against Karnataka BJP MP Tejasvi Surya. The case involved allegations that he had spread misinformation about a farmer’s suicide. Dismissing the petition, the bench cautioned the petitioner not to politicise the issue and reiterated that such battles should be taken up with the public, not in court.

On the same day, the CJI-led bench was also hearing a plea seeking criminal contempt against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for remarks she had made following a Supreme Court decision in the teachers’ recruitment scam. There too, the Court cautioned against turning judicial proceedings into political theatre.

Further, while hearing a matter concerning the Enforcement Directorate’s case against the wife of Karnataka’s Chief Minister in the MUDA scam, the bench questioned the apparent politicisation of investigative actions, asking why the ED was being used as a tool for political battles.

Through these decisions, the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that it will not tolerate the misuse of judicial forums for political advantage and remains committed to preserving the sanctity and neutrality of the judiciary.