SC Slams Plea Against CM Name in Welfare Schemes as ‘Abuse of Law’, Fines AIADMK Leader ₹10 Lakh

In a strong rebuke to what it termed an “abuse of process of law,” the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed a petition that sought to bar the Tamil Nadu government from using the names and images of current and former Chief Ministers in its welfare schemes. The court imposed a hefty fine of ₹10 lakh on AIADMK leader C Ve Shanmugam, who had originally filed the plea in the Madras High Court.

🔹 Supreme Court's Ruling

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai, and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria overruled the Madras High Court’s July 31 directive, calling the plea "unwarranted" and a misuse of judicial process. The court not only dismissed the High Court’s restrictions but also penalized Shanmugam for filing what it saw as a frivolous Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

🔹 Background: Madras HC's Initial Order

The Madras High Court had previously restrained the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government from:

• Naming or rebranding public welfare schemes after living individuals.

• Using portraits of current or former Chief Ministers and ideological leaders.

• Including party symbols or flags in advertisements promoting welfare schemes.

The High Court's directive came in response to Shanmugam’s PIL, which objected to the DMK’s flagship outreach initiative "Ungaludan Stalin" (With You, Stalin), claiming that it blurred the lines between public service and political propaganda.

🔹 SC: Political Branding Not Illegal

The Supreme Court made it clear that such branding—unless explicitly misleading or violating any laws—is not illegal. The top court reaffirmed the state’s right to promote welfare initiatives as it sees fit, and viewed the challenge as politically motivated rather than rooted in public interest.

“This is a classic case of abuse of law and waste of judicial time,” the bench remarked during the proceedings.

🔹 What This Means for Tamil Nadu

With this verdict, the Tamil Nadu government is free to continue naming schemes as it wishes, including references to current or former political leaders, as long as no laws are being violated. It’s also a signal to political litigants that the courts will not entertain PILs lacking genuine public interest.