The Supreme Court has overturned a Madras High Court order, allowing the Tamil Nadu government to use photos of former Chief Ministers in government advertisements. The ruling emphasizes that the practice is consistent with norms followed throughout the country.

The Madras High Court had previously restricted the Tamil Nadu government from using the name 'Stalin with You' and images of former chief ministers in government ads. This decision followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by C. Ve. Shanmugam, who argued that naming schemes after living politicians and using their images in publicity violated Supreme Court guidelines and the Government Advertisement (Content Regulation) Guidelines, 2014. Shanmugam contended that the inclusion of the incumbent Chief Minister's name and images of former Chief Ministers linked to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in government-funded welfare programs was a misuse of public funds.

The High Court's initial order barred the use of any living political personality's name and the display of former Chief Ministers or DMK insignia in advertisements. It clarified that while schemes could still be implemented, they could not be named after living politicians. The court also stated that including the names of political leaders in government schemes was not permissible.

The Tamil Nadu government challenged the Madras High Court's order in the Supreme Court. Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the state, sought an urgent listing, calling the matter "extremely unusual". The Tamil Nadu government argued that the High Court's order prevented them from naming welfare schemes, which are intended for the benefit of the poor.

The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the High Court's order is based on the understanding that using photos of former Chief Ministers in government ads is a common practice across the country. The Supreme Court Bench referred to an earlier ruling that permits the use of the current Chief Minister's photo in government advertisements. However, the inclusion of former leaders or party icons could be construed as political misuse of public funds.

The case is scheduled to be heard again on August 13, 2025.