DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAMversusTHIRU. C. VE. SHANMUGAM

                  [2025] 8 S.C.R. 956 : 2025 INSC 976

                      Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
                                    v.
                       Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam
                       (Civil Appeal No. 10259 of 2025)
                                 06 August 2025
             [B.R. Gavai,* CJI, K. Vinod Chandran and
                          N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose with regards to correctness of the interim order passed
       by the High Court that while launching and operating Government
       Welfare Schemes through various advertisements, the names of
       any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/
       ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of appellant shall
       not be included.

                                    Headnotes†
       Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 –
       cl.16A – Government Welfare Schemes after the names of any
       living personality, leaders – Permissibility – State of Tamil
       Nadu promulgated a scheme known as “Ungaludan Stalin”,
       meaning “Your’s Stalin – Respondent no.1-sitting Member
       of Parliament, belonging to political party in opposition filed
       representation/complaint before the ECI, and three days
       later, filed writ petition – Interim order by the High Court
       that while launching and operating Government Welfare
       Schemes through various advertisements, the names of any
       living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/
       ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of appellant
       not to be included – Challenge to:
       Held: Launching of schemes in the name of political leaders is a
       phenomenon which is followed throughout the Country – When
       such schemes are floated in the name of leaders of all the political
       parties, the anxiety of the writ petitioner to choose only one political
       party and one political leader cannot be appreciated – If the writ
       petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of public funds by
       the political parties, the writ petitioner would have made a challenge
       to all such schemes across the Country, however, singling out only
       one scheme by one political party in the name of one political leader,
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              957

       Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam


     smacks about the motives of the writ petitioner – Also, the manner
     in which the petition has been filed, smacks about the motives of the
     writ petitioner – Power u/clause 16A is available to the Commission
     when it deals with suspension or withdrawal of recognition of a
     recognized political party for its failure to observe Model Code
     of Conduct or to follow lawful directions and instructions of the
     Commission – Undisputedly, there is no Model Code of Conduct
     operating in the State of Tamil Nadu – As regards the tenability
     of such a representation before the ECI, even without giving an
     opportunity to the ECI to decide the said representation, the writ
     petitioner rushed to the High Court within three days of making
     the representation – Not giving even a breathing period to the ECI
     and making statements with regard to the Commission’s failure
     to act on the representation within a reasonable period, the writ
     petitioner, also tried to castigate the ECI – Political battles should
     be fought before the electorate, the Courts should not be used
     to settle the political scores between the rival political parties –
     Writ Petition not only misconceived in law, but total abuse of the
     process of law – Impugned order quashed and set aside – Costs
     of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed. [Paras 20-28]

                              Case Law Cited
     Common Cause v. Union of India [2014] 5 SCR 543 : (2014) 6
     SCC 552; Common Cause v. Union of India [2015] 5 SCR 29 :
     (2015) 7 SCC 1; State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and Others
     [2016] 2 SCR 902 : (2016) 13 SCC 639; Centre for Public Interest
     Litigation v. Kewal Kumar Sharma and Others (2017) 16 SCC
     715 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)
     Order, 1968.

                              List of Keywords
     Government welfare schemes; “Ungaludan Stalin”; “Your’s Stalin”;
     Use of photographs of political leaders; Advertisements issued
     through the public funds; Singling out only one scheme by one
     political party; Model Code of Conduct; Launching and operating
     Government Welfare Schemes; Names of any living personality;
     Photograph of former Chief Minister/ideological leaders; Party
     insignia/emblem/flag; Castigate the ECI.
958                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10259
       of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2025 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in WMP No. 30663 of 2025
       With
       Civil Appeal No. 10260 of 2025

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       P.S. Raman, Adv. Gen. (State of T.N.), Mukul Rohatgi, P. Wilson,
       A. Mariarputham, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advs., Richardson Wilson,
       Apoorv Malhotra, Lokesh Krishna, Aditya Ojha, Ankit Sharma,
       Saran Raghunandan, Aravind, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Misha
       Rohatgi Mohta, T. Harish Kumar, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Shubham
       Kothari, Deepak Jain, Shubham P. Chopra.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       P.S. Raman, Adv. Gen. (State of T.N.), Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv.,
       K Gowtham Kumar, Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Inbadurai,
       V Prabhu, Balaji Srinivasan, T. Harish Kumar, Ms. Priyansha
       Sharma, Shubham Kothari, Deepak Jain, Shubham P. Chopra.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       B.R. Gavai, CJI.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we withdraw
       the Writ Petition No.27277 of 2025 pending before the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) and
       take up the same also for hearing along with the present appeals.
3.     This batch of matters challenge the order passed by the Division
       Bench of the High Court dated 31st July, 2025 in WMP No. 30663 of
       2025 in Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025, by which the learned Judges
       of the Division Bench have passed an interim order to the effect
       that while launching and operating Government Welfare Schemes
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       959

       Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam


     through various advertisements, the names of any living personality,
     photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party
     insignia/emblem/flag of appellant (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam)
     shall not be included. The Division Bench of the High Court was
     gracious enough to add that it has not passed any order against
     launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of
     the Government.
4.   Since we have withdrawn the Writ Petition pending before the High
     Court and we are hearing the Writ Petition itself, we propose to refer
     to the facts as stated in the Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025.
5.   The Writ Petition has been filed by the respondent no.1 herein,
     who is a sitting Member of Parliament, belonging to a political party
     which is in opposition in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State of Tamil
     Nadu vide the Notification G.O. (Ms) No.390 Public (Mudhalvarin
     Mugavari) Department (hereinafter referred to as “said G.O.”), dated
     19th June, 2025, has promulgated a scheme known as “Ungaludan
     Stalin”, which as per the English translation means “Your’s Stalin”.
     By the said scheme, what has been provided is that though various
     schemes have been notified by the State Government, the citizens
     encounter challenge in availing of the said schemes due to lack of
     knowledge, information on eligibility and procedures to be followed,
     difficulty in understanding the procedural aspects like uploading
     required documents, challenges in use of technology amongst others
     leading to multiple applications and delays in service offered online.
6.   The said G.O. further states that the Chief Minister taking into
     account the difficulties faced by the common people, announced
     in the floor of Legislative Assembly on 25th April, 2025, that 9,000
     camps will be conducted across the State to reach out to every family
     and deliver eligible scheme benefits and services to the citizens in
     a time bound manner. It further states that the Chief Minister also
     announced that during these camps, applications will be received
     from the eligible left-out women for Kalaignar Mahalir Urimal Thittam
     (KMUT Scheme). The said G.O. further states that based on these
     announcements, the Chief Minister’s office has prepared proposal
     for implementation of the “Ungaludan Stalin” Scheme. It states that
     under the said scheme, 10,000 camps will be conducted across
     the State, to deliver the most sought-after services and schemes
     through localized camps to reach out to the people even in remote
960                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       corner of the State. Under the said scheme, it is stated that every
       household will be visited by a volunteer, who will inform the family
       about the objective and details of the camp, handover the application
       and pamphlet containing the list of schemes/services, explain the
       eligibility conditions and documents required to avail those services.
7.     The scheme further provides that the volunteers, who handover
       the pamphlet of the scheme will also inform, that the women who
       are eligible for KMUT Scheme, but have been left out in the earlier
       phase, can attend the Ungaludan Stalin Camps, register and submit
       applications in the KMUT Scheme. Subsequently, all the KMUT
       applications received on the day will be registered on the KMUT
       Mobile App by Illam Thedi Kalvi (ITK) volunteers. The details regarding
       the distribution of applications and pamphlets to all households,
       inauguration of camps in all districts and conducting of camps have
       been given in the said G.O. The said G.O. also provides for door to
       door campaign, selection, appointment and training of volunteers.
8.     Being aggrieved by the said G.O., a representation/complaint dated
       18th July, 2025, came to be filed by the writ petitioner before the
       Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as “ECI”) under
       Clause 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)
       Order, 1968. It is pleaded in the petition that three days after the
       said representation was made to the ECI, a writ petition came to
       be filed before the High Court stating therein that though a detailed
       representation dated 18th July, 2025 was sent to the ECI, and since
       the complaint has to be acted upon with promptitude by the authorities,
       and in the light of respondent’s failure to act on the representation
       and continuing violation of legal rights and constitutional principles,
       the writ petitioner was left with no other choice than to approach
       the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
       India for appropriate reliefs.
9.     From the order impugned herein, it appears that the learned Advocate
       General had made a submission that the writ petition has been filed
       without clear pleadings and on the basis of some print outs, which,
       on instructions, was stated are not a Government publication at
       all. The learned Advocate General also submitted that neither any
       pictorial representation/photograph of ideological leaders or former
       Chief Ministers has been imprinted, nor the political party’s insignia/
       flag/emblem/ logo has been used. He had also made a submission
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        961

        Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam


     that the allegations are entirely based on unauthentic documents
     and without any basis. He, therefore, sought time to file an affidavit
     so as to place correct facts on the record. However, the Division
     Bench of the High Court without giving any further time passed the
     impugned order as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, two special
     leave petitions have been filed, one by the political party - Dravida
     Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the other by the State of Tamil Nadu.
10. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri P. Wilson, learned senior
    counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Dr. A.M. Singhvi,
    learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil
    Nadu and Shri P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General for the State
    of Tamil Nadu. We have also heard Shri Maninder Singh, learned
    senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
11. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
    of the DMK party submits that none of the judgments of this Court in
    Common Cause vs. Union of India1, Common Cause vs. Union
    of India2, State of Karnataka vs. Common Cause and Others3 and
    Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Kewal Kumar Sharma
    and Others4 prohibit a scheme to be named after a political leader.
    It is stated that, as a matter of fact, the judgments/orders passed by
    this Court from Common Cause I to Common Cause IV, have been
    diluted and now the photographs of not only the Hon’ble President,
    the Prime Minister, the Governor, the Chief Ministers are permitted
    to be printed in the advertisements, but also the photographs of the
    Cabinet Ministers of the concerned departments. He further submitted
    that as a matter of fact, no new scheme has been framed, but what
    was done under the Ungaludan Stalin Scheme was only providing
    a platform to the citizens in the entire State, wherein the services
    of the State under the earlier schemes would be made known to
    the public and made available to them at their door steps. In any
    case, it is submitted that, there is no prohibition with regard to the
    publication of a scheme in the name of a political leader.
12. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of


1   (2014) 6 SCC 552, hereinafter referred to as, “Common Cause I”
2   (2015) 7 SCC 1, hereinafter referred to as, “Common Cause II”
3   (2016) 13 SCC 639, hereinafter referred to as, “Common Cause III”
4   (2017) 16 SCC 715, hereinafter referred to as, “Common Cause IV”
962                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       the State of Tamil Nadu relying on an application for placing additional
       documents on record, relied upon 45 documents wherein various
       schemes have been notified by various Governments with a prefix
       of names of political leaders.
13. Though, Dr. Singhvi has taken us through the list of such schemes,
    we refrain ourselves from referring to any of the schemes in order
    to avoid any embarrassment to any political party.
14. Mr. P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
    DMK party supplemented the arguments and relied upon a publication
    of the ECI dated 07th October, 2016, wherein it has directed that no
    political party shall henceforth, either use or allow the use of any
    public funds or public place or Government machinery, for carrying
    out any activity that would amount to advertisement for the party or
    propagating the election symbol allotted to the party.
15. We also had the benefit of the assistance of Mr. P.S Raman, learned
    Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, through video
    conferencing, who had appeared before the Division Bench of the
    High Court. He states that without giving an opportunity to the State,
    the ad interim order came to be passed on the very same day.
16. Per contra, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
    on behalf of the respondent no.1 (original writ petitioner), submits
    that the cumulative effect of all the four judgments in Common
    Cause I, Common Cause II, Common Cause III and Common
    Cause IV would show that this Court has frowned upon personal
    glorification of any political leader, it has also frowned upon using of
    public funds for glorifying a person in office. Learned senior counsel
    specifically relied upon the paragraph 6 of the Common Cause II,
    wherein detailed guidelines have been framed by this Court. The
    guidelines were framed by a Committee constituted by this Court
    under the Chairmanship of Prof.(Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon, Former
    Director, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal. He submits that the
    paragraph 4 of the Guidelines provides that the possibility of any
    misuse of public funds on advertisement campaigns in order to
    gain political mileage by the political establishment has to be totally
    excluded. He further submits that the paragraph 5 of the Guidelines
    requires that the guidelines must be used by the Government only
    to inform the citizens about their rights and responsibilities, about
    government policies, programmes, services or initiatives. He also
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          963

       Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam


     refers to a guideline in clause (i) of sub-para (3) of paragraph 6
     of the guidelines which provides that the advertisement materials
     should be objective and not directed at promoting political interest
     of a political party. He also relies on clause (ii) of sub-para (3) of
     paragraph 6 of the guidelines which provides that the government
     advertising shall maintain political neutrality and avoid glorification
     of political personalities and projecting a positive impression of the
     party in power or a negative impression of parties critical of the
     Government.
17. The Common Cause cases dealt with the use of photographs of
    the political leaders and particularly, the heads of the Executive in
    the advertisements issued through the public funds. In Common
    Cause I, this Court appointed a Committee consisting of three
    persons, namely, Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon, Former Director,
    National Judicial Academy, Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, Former Secretary
    General, Lok Sabha and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate.
18. In Common Cause II, after considering the report of the
    said Committee, this Court after approving and adopting the
    recommendations of the Committee, with the exception(s) that are
    carved out by the judgment, permitted publication of the photographs
    of the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of India. No doubt
    that it was left to their own wisdom to make a decision in this regard.
19. In Common Cause III, the Court permitted, in addition to the
    publication of the photographs of the President, Prime Minister, and
    Chief Justice of India, the Cabinet Minister and Minister in-charge
    of the Ministry concerned. This Court also permitted the photograph
    of the Chief Minister of the State to be published.
20. The launching of schemes in the name of political leaders is a
    phenomenon which is followed throughout the Country. As already
    stated hereinabove, Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing
    on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has given a list of 45 such
    schemes, wherein the schemes have been portrayed in the name
    of the various political leaders. We, however, do not wish to refer to
    the list of those schemes in order to avoid any embarrassment to
    any of the political party.
21. When such schemes are floated in the name of leaders of all the
    political parties, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the writ petitioner
    to choose only one political party and one political leader. If the writ
964                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of public funds by
       the political parties, the writ petitioner would have made a challenge
       to all such schemes across the Country. However, singling out only
       one scheme by one political party in the name of one political leader,
       smacks about the motives of the writ petitioner. Apart from that, the
       manner in which the petition has been filed, also smacks about the
       motives of the writ petitioner.
22. A representation/complaint was made before the ECI on 18th of July,
    2025. Whether such a representation is tenable or not, itself, is a
    debatable question. The power under Clause 16A of the Election
    Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 is available to
    the Commission when it deals with suspension or withdrawal of
    recognition of a recognized political party for its failure to observe
    Model Code of Conduct or to follow lawful directions and instructions
    of the Commission. Undisputedly, there is no Model Code of Conduct
    operating in the State of Tamil Nadu. The moot question, that would
    arise, therefore, is as to whether such a representation before the ECI
    was tenable or not. In any case, even without giving an opportunity
    to the ECI to decide the said representation, the writ petitioner had
    rushed to the High Court on 21st July, 2025, i.e., within three days
    of making the representation.
23. After approaching the Court in such a hurried manner, the writ petitioner
    had the audacity to state in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, thus:
            “In light of the respondent’s failure to act on the
            representation and the continuing violation of legal and
            constitutional principles, I am left with no choice but to
            approach this Hon’ble Court for appropriate reliefs. The
            issues raised in the present Writ Petitions concern larger
            questions of governance ethics and democratic fairness.”
24. Not giving even a breathing period to the ECI and making such
    statements with regard to the Commission’s failure to act on the
    representation within a reasonable period, the writ petitioner, in our
    view, has also tried to castigate the ECI.
25. Time and again we have observed that the political battles should be
    fought before the electorate. At the cost of repetition, we observe that
    the Courts should not be used to settle the political scores between
    the rival political parties.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          965

           Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru. C. Ve. Shanmugam


26. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Writ Petition itself
    was not only misconceived in law, but also totally an abuse of the
    process of law.
27. Accordingly, while allowing the appeals, by quashing and setting
    aside the impugned order, we are also inclined to dismiss the Writ
    Petition with costs.
28. In the result, we pass the following order:
     i.      The appeals are allowed;
     ii.     The impugned order dated 31st July, 2025, passed by the High
             Court of Judicature at Madras is hereby quashed and set aside;
     iii.    The Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025 pending before the High
             Court is withdrawn and transferred to this Court and is dismissed
             with costs quantified at Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh), to
             be deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu;
     iv.     The writ petitioner shall deposit the cost within a period of one
             week from today. On deposit of the said amount, the State shall
             use it only for the purposes of implementation of any of the
             welfare schemes floated for the underprivileged in the State; and
     v.      On failure to deposit the cost within a period of one week, as
             aforesaid, the writ petitioner would be liable to be proceeded
             against for having committed the Contempt of this Court.
29. We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance
    provided by Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Advocate General for the State
    of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. P. Wilson,
    learned senior counsels and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior
    counsel ably assisted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel.
30. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Matters disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain