SC to hear plea against Madras HC order barring use of leaders' name in welfare schemes
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai agreed to hear the state's appeal on Wednesday after an urgent mentioning was made by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the state.
Rohatgi said, 'This is a very unusual order of the Madras high court that requires urgent hearing,' pointing to the July 31 interim order passed while hearing a public interest litigation filed by member of parliament (MP) C V Shanmugam of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).
The HC in its order said, '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.'
As the court wished to know about the details of the order, Rohatgi said: 'According to the HC order, no scheme of government can have the name of the chief minister or any political figure. The order was passed on Thursday and we are in the process of filing an appeal. It requires urgent hearing as the high court has restrained us based on a wrong reading of judgments of this court.'
'We will have it on Friday,' CJI Gavai said, after Rohatgi pointed out that the scheme is intended for the benefit of the poor.
Shanmugam in his petition before the high court challenged a June 19 order of the state government for implementing a public outreach programme having the name of chief minister MK Stalin.
The scheme 'Ungaludan Stalin' was intended at taking the government's benefits and services to the doorstep of beneficiaries by organising nearly 10,000 camps at a proposed budget of ₹54.95 crore.
The HC order referred to Supreme Court decisions of 2014 and 2015 in Common Cause v Union of India which laid down guidelines to regulate governments from issuing advertisements to glorify their parties using state funds.
Citing these judgments, the HC said, 'The use of photographs of ideological leaders or former Chief Minister, prima facie, would be against the directives of the Supreme Court.' It noted a 2016 judgment of the top court which clarified that under certain exceptions, publication of the photograph of the incumbent CM is permissible.
As the SC had formed a central committee on content regulation in government advertising, the PIL in the high court had sought a direction to this committee along with the Election Commission of India to take action against the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling party in the state under paragraph 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court reserves judgment on Telangana's domicile policy for medical admissions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 05) categorically said it has no intention to open a Pandora's Box while questioning the domicile policy of Telangana government for medical admissions. The Telangana Medical and Dental Colleges Admission (Admission into MBBS & BDS Courses) Rules, 2017, amended in 2024, required students to complete classes 9 to 12 in the State to be eligible for admissions to medical and dental colleges under the State quota. The High Court, in a decision last year, had found the rule arbitrary. It had reasoned that the rule excluded students who had left the State, even for a couple of years, to attend preparatory courses ahead of the medical exams, but whose parents were permanently domiciled in the State, from admissions under the State quota. During the hearing of the State's appeal on Tuesday, a Bench of Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Vinod Chandran also focussed on the same aspect, which the High Court had found anomalous in the State domicile policy. 'If students otherwise domiciled in Telangana or whose parents are domiciled in the State choose to study for four years from Class 9 to Class 12 outside Telangana for one or the other reason, may be due to the transfer of a parent, will they not be eligible? You are telling students not to go out of Telangana? We are not opening any Pandora's Box… We will consider the jurisprudence, but at times you will have to consider the ground reality,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate A. M. Singhvi and advocate Sravan Kumar, appearing for Telangana, in a hearing which took the whole morning before reserving the case for orders. The State argued that it possessed the legislative competence to determine various requirements, including domicile, permanent resident status, etc. 'But take a student, born and raised in Telangana, who shifts outside after Class 10 to Kota for coaching. Or an IAS officer whose child studies outside the State for two years. Should such children be disqualified?' the CJI asked. Justice Chandran intervened to ask, 'if a person remains idle in Telangana for four years, they qualify. But someone who leaves to study does not. Is that not an anomaly?' Mr. Singhvi said the High Court created the term 'permanent resident,' which only the State had the authority to define. 'There may be students who go for a two-year study course, after Class 10, to London or the U.S. or even Delhi and Mumbai… They plan to return to Telangana, do their medical course and start a big hospital in the State. Would you be denying them the chance because their parents may be affluent and can send their children abroad?' Chief Justice Gavai asked. Mr. Singhvi said he was not judging them, but asked why the State should reserve seats for such people under the State quota when they could apply under the NRI quota. He said there were hundreds of poor students waiting for seats in medical colleges. 'Besides, a person who goes out, may not come back. He may see more opportunities abroad,' Mr. Singhvi submitted.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Can not monitor CM relief fund but expect fair use, says Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has said it cannot monitor disbursement of money from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, but it hopes and trusts the same is utilised strictly for the purpose for which it is operated and there is no deviation. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, in the order on July 31, noted transactions of the fund can always be accessed by members of the public by seeking information under the Right to Information Act. "We cannot monitor the operation of the CMRF. We, however, hope and trust that the contributions made to the CMRF are utilised strictly for the objectives and purpose for which the fund is operated and that there is no deviation in any case," the court said. The HC disposed of a public interest litigation filed by city-based NGO 'Public Concern for Governance Trust', claiming the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was being used for purposes other than what it was established for. The plea said the CMRF should be used solely and exclusively to assist victims of natural calamities, disasters and upheavals, as was envisaged at the time of its formation. The government opposed the plea, saying that while initially the CMRF was set up to assist victims of natural calamities and disasters, its aims and objectives were expanded in November 2001. This was done in view of the increasing demands for victims of incidents other than natural calamities. The petition also sought the HC to form a committee to manage disbursement of money from the CMRF and also for an audit to be conducted. It alleged that the CMRF is being used by successive chief ministers for other reasons such as construction of cultural halls, sponsoring teams for tournaments, granting personal loans to political, social and cultural bodies and so on. The government said providing assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities was one of the objectives of the CMRF. The CMRF was being operated in a transparent manner and information related to its transactions could be obtained through the Right to Information Act, the government added. The high court in its order said it was a matter of policy decision of the state government to sanction and widen the CMRF's objectives. The petitioner cannot insist that the CMRF must be operated for the original purpose alone and there is no legal prohibition on widening of the objective of the CMRF, the judges said. The HC also refused to accept the petitioner's allegation of non-maintenance of CMRF's transparency and said the accounts of the trust are audited and income tax returns are filed.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Page sequencing error: SC directs manual evaluation of NEET-UG aspirant's answer script
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the manual evaluation of the answer script of a NEET-UG 2025 aspirant, who alleged erroneous page sequencing in his question paper. Page sequencing error: SC directs manual evaluation of NEET-UG aspirant's answer script A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan ordered the result of evaluation to be placed on record. "He will have the satisfaction of getting his papers manually checked," the bench said. The aspirant said claimed wrong sequencing of pages in the NEET-UG question paper. The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate examination is conducted by the National Testing Agency for admissions to MBBS, BDS and AYUSH and other related courses in government and private institutions across the country. Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the respondents, put of a copy of the question paper on record to explain that the mistake arose due to incorrect stapling. "However, in order to satisfy ourselves, we direct that the petitioner's paper shall be evaluated manually and the result of the evaluation be placed on the record. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of one week," the bench said. Dave said stapling of question paper was a manual exercise. "The least that could be done is to give the questions in seriatim," the bench said. It added, "Look at the panic of the candidate. It is not an ordinary exam." The law officer said only semi-skilled or semi-literate people were employed for the stapling work. "If we give it to a literate person and if he staples it, we know for sure that one or two questions he can memorise and they can go out," she said, calling it a "rarest of rare" instance. The bench, however, remarked that "17-18 year old" students were dying by suicide. "Please don't try to justify," the top court said and posted the hearing for August 12. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
