Therefore, we are inclined to pass an interim order to the effect that while launching and operating government welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of respondent No.4 shall not be included. 14. We may hasten to add that we have not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare scheme of the government. 15. Pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India or the authorities in initiating any proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner. List the interim application along with the writ petition on 13.8.2025. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J) 31.07.2025 sasi To: 1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising, Fourth Floor, Soochna Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110003 3. The Principal Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Public Department, Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.07.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
WMP No.30663 of 2025 in WP No.27277 of 2025
C.Ve.Shanmugam B.A., B.L.,
Member of Parliment, S/o Late Venugopal having address at
No 1, Mottian Street,
Tindivanam – 604 001.
Petitioner(s) Vs
The Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi – 110 001 and 3 others
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Gowthamkumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for M/s.G.R.Associates for R1
Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar
State Government Pleader,
Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate, and Mr.M.Habeen Rahman Government Advocate for R3
Mr.P.Wilson, Senior Counsel for Mr.Richardson Wilson
For R4
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon’ble Chief Justice)
Shri Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner prays for interim injunction restraining respondent No.3 from introducing/ re-branding any scheme in the name of any living personality
pending final disposal of the writ petition.
2. Shri Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, would submit
that this petition had to be filed in public interest as the State, while sanctioning public outreach scheme, which is implemented using public fund, is not only using the name of the incumbent Chief Minister in the nomenclature of the scheme, but also using pictorial representations/photographs of certain ideological leaders and former Chief Minister, who belonged to the present ruling party, i.e., the fourth respondent. Mentioning the name of the incumbent Chief Minister in the nomenclature of the scheme and all such pictorial representations is in violation of various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also violative of Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014
framed by the second respondent.
3. It is further submitted that even the party logo/emblem is being printed in the outreach programmes launching beneficial schemes of the government. The petitioner has come to know that respondent No.3 is proceeding to launch another scheme containing similar legally impermissible pictorial representations, names, logos, emblems and, therefore, appropriate interim order may be passed restraining respondent No.3 from floating such publications.
4. Per contra, Shri Raman, learned Advocate General, would submit that the petition has been filed without clear pleading and on the basis of some printouts, which, upon instructions, he states are
not government publications at all.
5. While praying for short time to place on record, by way of an affidavit, the correct copy of publications/pamphlets which have
actually been prepared under the State authority for being circulated to publicize the beneficiary schemes, learned Advocate
General submitted that neither any pictorial
representation/photograph of ideological leaders or former Chief Minister has been imprinted, nor the political party’s
insignia/flag/emblem/logo is being used. He would submit that the allegations are entirely based on unauthentic documents and without any basis. This, he would be clarifying, by placing on
record, appropriate affidavit along with correct document.
6. As far as the prayer for grant of interim relief is concerned, learned Advocate General would submit that the apprehension of
the petitioner is ill-founded and without any basis.
7. Shri Wilson, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, would submit that present is a politically motivated petition, as the petitioner himself is a Member of Parliament belonging to the opposition in the State and only in order to malign the image of popular leaders of the present ruling party, petition has been filed
and petitioner is not entitled to any interim relief.
8. Shri Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India, would submit that any party while floating any government scheme is obliged under the law to strictly comply with the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court of India and the directives issued by the Election Commission of India from
time to time, including one such direction dated 7.10.2016.
9. On prima facie considerations, we find that the prayer for interim relief has been made on the apprehension that the State is proceeding to launch many welfare schemes on the same line as the
advertisement under challenge in this petition.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued successive
directives from time to time regulating the content of government advertisements in the cases of (i) Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 552; (ii) Common Cause v. Union of India, (2015) 7
SCC 1; (iii) Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Kewal Kumar Sharma and others, (2017) 16 SCC 715.
11. In a clarificatory order passed in a review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and others, (2016) 13 SCC 639, permitted certain exceptions to the directives issued in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 1. As per the said order, publication of the
photograph of the incumbent Chief Minister is permissible. The use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Minister, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court.
12. Further, it would not be permissible to mention the nameof the living political personality in the nomenclature of the government scheme. Moreover, using the name of any ruling political party, its insignia/logo/emblem/flag also appears to be prima facie against the directives of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission of India.
13. Therefore, we are inclined to pass an interim order to the effect that while launching and operating government welfare schemes through various advertisements, the name of any living personality, photograph of any former Chief Minister/ideological leaders or party insignia/emblem/flag of respondent No.4 shall not
be included.
14. We may hasten to add that we have not passed any order against launching, implementation or operation of any welfare
scheme of the government.
15. Pendency of this petition shall not come in the way of the Election Commission of India or the authorities in initiating any
proceeding on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner.
List the interim application along with the writ petition on
13.8.2025.
(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J)
31.07.2025
sasi
To:
1. The Chief Election Commissioner,
Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising, Fourth Floor, Soochna Bhawan,
C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110003
3. The Principal Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Public Department,
Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai – 600 009.
