Many Political Parties 'Mushrooming' These Days Only For Tax And Legal Benefits: Madras High Court Remarks
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (February 26th), orally remarked that many political parties were "mushrooming" lately, not with the intention of contesting elections but merely for getting tax benefits and other benefits under law. The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that the court had recently dealt with cases related to the delisting...
The Madras High Court, on Thursday (February 26th), orally remarked that many political parties were "mushrooming" lately, not with the intention of contesting elections but merely for getting tax benefits and other benefits under law.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked that the court had recently dealt with cases related to the delisting and derecognition of political parties, noting that many new political parties had emerged in recent years.
“This mushrooming of political parties is there. They are there only for taking exemptions under law. Ghost parties that don't have any intention of contesting elections,” the court orally remarked.
The court made the remarks while hearing a case filed by actor-turned-politician Vijay's Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) challenging certain conditions in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) promulgated by the State for political meetings.
TVK had argued that the State was giving preferential treatment to recognised political parties while granting permission for a public meeting. Other conditions that were challenged related to the liability of the political parties while organising the meetings.
TVK had argued that the SOP gives priority to political parties recognised by the Election Commission of India to the exclusion of registered political parties, and thus creates an unconstitutional classification. It has also been argued that the SOP violates Article 14 of the Constitution, creating an impermissible political hierarchy.
Balasubramaniam argued that an artificial hierarchy was being created by the State. Pointing to the large crowd that had gathered for the TVK's meeting that led to the unfortunate stampede, Balasubramaniam argued that it was not a matter of being recognised or registered, and the permission should ideally be granted in a first come first serve basis.
To this, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran submitted that the state was following a first come first serve policy while granting permissions when applications were made on different days. He added that recognised parties were given preference only when applications were filed on the same day.
Balasubramaniam then argued that if the state was in fact following first come first serve policy, it must be applied in all situations. He suggested that priority should be given to the complaint that is first received by the authorities even if other applications are made on the same day.
When the court asked the State how the applications were being received at present, the AAG informed the court that an online system was being developed to collect applications. The court suggested that the system should be made online, as otherwise, there were chances that some applications might be kept pending and others might be given priority over it.
The court also orally remarked that the earlier pleas were disposed of with a direction to the State to consider the suggestions made by other political parties, including TVK. The bench remarked that it was pained to see what had happened in the stampede and though that some precautionary measures should be in place.
Though the party also challenged the provisions that put obligations on the party for crowd management, the court noted that some measures would have to be put in place and the parties should also have some responsibility.
“Barricades are needed. Fire brigades have to come in, ambulance have to come. All political parties should be on the same level. If you're organising some meeting, some responsibility should be there,” the court orally remarked.
However, the party argued that the State was shifting its responsibility of maintaining law and order upon the parties. The court then asked the State to clarify what it meant by crowd control measures that was to be taken by the political parties.
The court also directed the State to file its counter and adjourned the plea by 3 weeks.
Case Title: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam v. The Additional Chief Secretary
Case No: WP 5739 of 2026