The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a Madras High Court directive which restrained the Tamil Nadu government from using the name of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin for a welfare scheme. The apex court questioned the motive behind the petition fray put as political during one session of hearing by AIADMK MP C. Ve. Shanmugam while complaining against one political party and its leader when schemes in other states have passed without a challenge.
“When welfare programmes are routinely named after leaders of various political parties, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the petitioner to single out only one government and one leader,” the bench observed, as reported by LiveLaw.
The Madras High Court order, passed on July 31, had barred naming state-sponsored schemes after both living political figures and former chief ministers. The Tamil Nadu government has filed an appeal against this ruling, contending that such restrictions are arbitrary and have no legal basis
Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost, Orders Funds for Underprivileged Schemes
Supreme Court imposed a ₹10 lakh fine on MP Shanmugam for what it viewed as a politically motivated lawsuit. The money shall be deposited with the Tamil Nadu government and directed to be used for the welfare of the underprivileged.
Described in its judgment was the unwillingness of the apex court to interfere with administrative matters like naming schemes after political leaders, except where evidence of misappropriation of public money is shown or there has been a violation of constitutional provisions. According to legal experts, this ruling gives a very clear message that the selective targeting of governments through court petitions will not be looked at anymore.
The ruling put an end to the uncertainty surrounding branding of government schemes in Tamil Nadu. With the lifting of the ban, the state can now continue to name welfare initiatives in the name of Chief Ministers, so that the development programs can continue without let or hindrance.
Issues surrounding the naming of welfare schemes after politicians have found themselves in the courts once before. However, the clear message from the Supreme Court is that the courts will only step in where such actions can be shown to be corrupt or purely partisan in nature.
By dismissing the High Court order and imposing costs on the petitioner, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the necessity of putting public interest above political propaganda.
