In a sharp move against political self-promotion, the Madras High Court has drawn a firm line: government schemes aren’t billboards for political egos.
The Court, led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan, issued an interim order barring the inclusion of any living person’s name, any former Chief Minister’s photo, or any political party symbol in state-sponsored welfare advertisements. In short—no faces, no flags, no fanfare.
This ruling came during the hearing of a petition filed by AIADMK MP C Ve Shanmugam, who alleged that the ruling party was rolling out new schemes emblazoned with the current Chief Minister’s name, portraits of ideological leaders, and party emblems. According to him, this violated both Supreme Court rulings and the Centre’s 2014 guidelines on government advertisement content.
The State’s response? The documents were “unauthenticated,” not official, and the plea was “politically coloured.” Still, the Court wasn’t biting.
Referencing State of Karnataka v. Common Cause & Others, the judges acknowledged that a Chief Minister’s photo may be permissible—but stopped short at ideological leaders and past CMs, calling such inclusions “prima facie contrary” to legal precedent.
And there’s more: names of political figures cannot be part of scheme titles, the Court stressed. Nor can logos, flags, or emblems tied to the ruling party make their way into taxpayer-funded promotions. The judges reminded all concerned that these actions not only defy the top court’s orders but also cross lines laid down by the Election Commission of India.
Significantly, the judges made it clear that their interim order doesn’t tie the hands of the Election Commission—it can act on the petitioner’s complaints even while the case remains pending.
Next stop for this courtroom clash? August 13.
Counsel on all sides came armed—Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan led the charge for the petitioner, while the State fielded a legal team that included Advocate General PS Raman. The Election Commission of India also made its presence known, appearing through GR Associates. But at the heart of it all, the Court’s message was simple: public welfare isn’t a campaign trail.
