Supreme Court of India
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs Thiru. C.Ve. Shanmugam on 6 August, 2025
Author: B.R.Gavai
Bench: B.R.Gavai
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 976 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10259 OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21487 of 2025]
DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM ….APPELLANT
v.
THIRU. C. VE. SHANMUGAM .…RESPONDENT
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10260 OF 2025
[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21995 of 2025]
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
Signature Not VerifiedDivision Bench of the High Court dated 31st July, 2025 in WMP
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.08.13
17:55:03 IST
Reason: No. 30663 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 27277 of 2025, by which
the learned Judges of the Division Bench have passed an
Page 1 of 15
interim order to the effect 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 (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 Since we have withdrawn the Writ Petition pending before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
Page 2 of 15
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
Page 3 of 15
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 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
Page 4 of 15
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/
Page 5 of 15
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 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
Page 6 of 15
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.
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”
Page 7 of 15
12. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of 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,
Page 8 of 15
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
Page 9 of 15
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 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.
Page 10 of 15
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.
Page 11 of 15
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 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,
Page 12 of 15
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
Page 13 of 15
political scores between the rival political parties.
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
Page 14 of 15
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.
..…………………………………CJI
[B.R.GAVAI]
….…………………………………J
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
………………………………………J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST, 06 2025.
Page 15 of 15