The Supreme Court criticised AIADMK MP C.V. Shanmugam for casting doubts on the Election Commission and abusing court process. It set aside Madras HC’s order on the “Ungaludan Stalin” scheme and ordered him to pay Rs 10 lakh as costs.
New Delhi: On August 18, the Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised AIADMK Member of Parliament C.V. Shanmugam for making premature allegations against the Election Commission of India (ECI) while challenging a Tamil Nadu government welfare scheme.
The case came before a Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria.
The issue arose when the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the State of Tamil Nadu filed appeals against a Madras High Court interim order.
The High Court had earlier restrained the Tamil Nadu government from using the name of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in its welfare initiative called “Ungaludan Stalin.”
C.V. Shanmugam had first approached the Election Commission under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, complaining about the scheme.
However, only three days later, without waiting for a response, he rushed to the Madras High Court accusing the Commission of failing to act on his complaint.
The Supreme Court said that this hasty conduct created unnecessary doubt about the ECI’s credibility. In its ruling dated August 6, 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 Bench stressed that litigants must allow the Election Commission reasonable time to consider a complaint before alleging inaction or running to court. The Court noted that Shanmugam’s own pleadings accused the Commission of inaction, even though the representation had been filed only a few days earlier.
The Court further underlined that this type of conduct weakens trust in democratic institutions. It reminded political parties that their fights must take place before the public, not by questioning constitutional bodies or misusing courts.
As the Bench put it:
“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 judges also pointed out that Shanmugam’s selective approach was questionable. The State produced a list of 45 different welfare schemes launched in Tamil Nadu over the years, each bearing the names of various political leaders.
Yet, Shanmugam chose to challenge only one scheme that carried the name of M.K. Stalin. Commenting on this, the Court remarked:
“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.”
On these grounds, the Supreme Court concluded that the petition before the Madras High Court was “misconceived” and amounted to misuse of judicial process.
ALSO READ: Election Commission of India Invites MP Mahua Moitra After Supreme Court Order
It set aside the High Court’s interim order, allowed the appeals of the State of Tamil Nadu and DMK, and also imposed a heavy cost on Shanmugam.
The Court ordered him to pay Rs 10 lakh to the State of Tamil Nadu within one week, directing that the amount should be used only for schemes that benefit underprivileged citizens. The Bench also made it clear that non-compliance would lead to contempt proceedings.
Case Title:
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. Thiru C.V. Shanmugam and Others,
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Disenfranchisement
