The Madras High Court held that government advertisements for welfare schemes must not feature names or images of living political figures, party emblems, or symbols, observing that such usage violates constitutional and judicial norms. The Court made these observations while hearing a plea challenging the inclusion of ruling party references in Tamil Nadu’s grievance redressal scheme. The Bench remarked that such political branding in public-funded schemes could amount to misuse of public resources and undermine the apolitical nature of welfare governance.
The matter arose from a petition filed by a Member of Parliament from the opposition AIADMK, challenging the Tamil Nadu government's use of Chief Minister MK Stalin’s name and photographs in the State’s public grievance redressal initiative titled ‘Mudhalvarin Mugavari.’ The petitioner alleged that the promotional materials for the scheme also featured images of other DMK leaders and party-related symbols, despite being state-funded.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan argued that the inclusion of the Chief Minister’s name and party insignia in welfare advertisements directly contravened guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014. He further submitted that such practices amounted to political propaganda using taxpayer money, which was not permissible in a democracy.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan noted that prima facie, the use of photographs of ideological figures, former chief ministers, and ruling party symbols in government-sponsored advertisements was inconsistent with the law. The Court specifically referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Common Cause, including its 2016 clarification, which restricted the use of images in public advertisements to the President, Prime Minister, and incumbent Chief Ministers alone, with limitations.
The High Court observed, “It would not be permissible to mention the name of a living political personality in the nomenclature of a government scheme. Moreover, using the name of any ruling political party, its insignia, logo, emblem, or flag also appears to prima facie violate directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.”
While taking into account the petitioner’s apprehension that similar practices may be adopted in upcoming schemes, the Court considered it appropriate to issue interim directions.
Advocate General P.S. Raman, representing the State, opposed the plea, stating that the materials submitted by the petitioner were not official publications. He assured the Court that no such images or party symbols were used in official content and sought time to file a comprehensive affidavit. Whereas, Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the DMK, argued that the petition was politically driven, aimed at maligning the ruling party under the garb of public interest litigation.
Without halting the implementation of the welfare scheme itself, the High Court issued interim directions barring the use of any living personality’s name, photographs of former Chief Ministers or ideological leaders, and any political insignia or flag in state advertisements related to welfare schemes. The Court clarified, “We have not passed any order against launching, implementation, or operation of welfare schemes of the government.” The Bench further observed that nothing in the present proceedings would prevent the Election Commission or other competent bodies from acting upon complaints lodged under relevant laws.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on August 13, with the State directed to submit its official stance along with supporting materials.
Picture Source :
