The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on August 6, 2025, came down heavily on AIADMK Member of Parliament (MP) CV Shanmugam for prematurely approaching the courts against the Tamil Nadu government’s welfare scheme “Ungaludan Stalin”. The Court not only set aside the Madras High Court’s interim order that had restrained the use of Chief Minister MK Stalin’s name in the scheme but also imposed ₹10 lakh costs on the MP for abusing the process of law.
The case, titled Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru C.V. Shanmugam and Ors., raises critical questions about the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI), the use of political leaders’ names in state welfare schemes, and the judiciary’s stance on attempts to discredit democratic institutions.
Background: The Challenge to “Ungaludan Stalin” Scheme
The “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme, launched by the DMK-led Tamil Nadu government, was aimed at improving citizen engagement and welfare delivery. However, CV Shanmugam, an AIADMK leader and MP, objected to the scheme on the ground that it unfairly promoted the ruling party by associating the programme directly with the Chief Minister.
Shanmugam filed a representation before the Election Commission of India under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, alleging violation of electoral fairness. However, just three days later, without waiting for the ECI to examine the matter, he rushed to the Madras High Court.
On his plea, the High Court passed an interim order restraining the State from using the Chief Minister’s name in the scheme. This prompted appeals by both the DMK and the State of Tamil Nadu before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Stern Observations
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, along with Justices K Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria, expressed serious disapproval of Shanmugam’s conduct.
The Court held that Shanmugam’s act of filing a petition before the High Court, barely days after submitting his complaint to the ECI, amounted to an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Election Commission.
The Court observed:
“Not giving even a breathing period to the ECI and making such statements with regard to the Commission’s failure to act on the representation within a reasonable period, the writ petitioner, in our view, has also tried to castigate the ECI.”
The Supreme Court made it clear that litigants cannot rush to court alleging inaction by a constitutional body like the ECI without giving it reasonable time to act.
Political Battles Belong to the Electorate, Not the Court
Reiterating a principle often emphasized in past judgments, the Bench stated:
“Time and again we have observed that the political battles should be fought before the electorate. Courts should not be used to settle the political scores between the rival political parties.”
The judgment emphasized that faith in democratic institutions like the ECI must be preserved. Attempts by political actors to drag constitutional bodies into partisan conflicts weaken democracy and misdirect judicial resources.
Selective Challenge: Why Only One Scheme?
A striking part of the judgment was the Court’s criticism of Shanmugam’s selective approach. The State of Tamil Nadu produced details of 45 welfare schemes launched over the years, each named after different political leaders. Yet, Shanmugam chose to challenge only the DMK’s “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme.
The Court noted:
“When such schemes are floated in the name of leaders of all the political parties, we do not appreciate the anxiety of the writ petitioner to choose only one political party and one political leader. If the writ petitioner was so concerned about the misuse of public funds, he would have made a challenge to all such schemes across the country.”
This observation pointed to the partisan intent behind the petition and underscored that the case was not driven by genuine public interest but political rivalry.
Costs of ₹10 Lakh for Abuse of Process
Finding that the writ petition before the Madras High Court was misconceived and amounted to an abuse of process, the Supreme Court not only allowed the appeals of the State and DMK but also slapped a hefty ₹10 lakh cost on Shanmugam.
The Court directed that the amount must be deposited with the State of Tamil Nadu within one week and utilized exclusively for welfare schemes for underprivileged sections of society.
It further warned that failure to comply would invite contempt proceedings. This strong punitive measure reinforces the judiciary’s disapproval of frivolous and politically motivated litigation.
Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment
This ruling clarifies and strengthens several important legal principles:
- Reasonable Time for ECI to Act – Petitioners must allow the Election Commission adequate time to consider representations before alleging inaction.
- Political Disputes Are Electoral, Not Judicial – Courts should not become arenas for political fights that rightly belong in the democratic process.
- Abuse of Process of Law – Selective targeting of rival parties’ schemes without addressing similar practices across the board amounts to mala fide litigation.
- Judicial Protection of Institutions – The judgment defends the institutional credibility of the ECI, a cornerstone of free and fair elections.
- Imposition of Costs – By levying heavy costs, the Court signaled its intent to discourage misuse of judicial forums for partisan agendas.
Implications for Political Parties and Governance
The Supreme Court’s decision has far-reaching implications:
The Supreme Court’s decision has far-reaching implications:
- For Political Parties – They must exercise restraint before filing litigation against rival schemes, ensuring complaints are genuine and not politically motivated.
- For the Election Commission – The judgment reaffirms public confidence in the ECI by cautioning against attempts to prematurely question its role.
- For Governance – States naming welfare schemes after political leaders is a long-standing practice. The Court has avoided passing a blanket prohibition but has reminded parties that challenges should be consistent and non-selective.
- For the Judiciary – The ruling reflects judicial prudence in drawing a clear line between political contests and legal disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme case delivers a strong message against the misuse of judicial forums for political gains. By rapping AIADMK MP CV Shanmugam, imposing ₹10 lakh costs, and defending the Election Commission’s institutional credibility, the Court has reaffirmed that political disputes must be settled in the electoral arena, not the courtroom.
This ruling not only preserves the integrity of the ECI but also acts as a deterrent against frivolous, selective, and politically motivated litigation. It reinforces the principle that while welfare schemes can bear political associations, challenges to such practices must be consistent, comprehensive, and made in good faith—not driven by partisan motives.
In essence, the judgment is a timely reminder that democratic institutions must be respected, the judiciary must not be misused, and political battles must be fought where they belong—before the people.
Also Read
