The Supreme Court on August 4, 2025, rejected a plea filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) challenging an interim order passed by the Madras High Court. The High Court had restrained the DMK from sending OTP-based verification messages as part of its membership drive under the ‘Oraniyil Tamil Nadu’ scheme.
The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar declined to interfere, noting that the High Court’s order was interim in nature.
"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court for the reason that it is interim in nature." — Supreme Court Bench
Read also: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar Allows Bail in GST Fake Firm Case Involving ₹107 Cr Tax Credit
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for DMK, submitted that the campaign was similar to membership drives conducted by other parties such as the BJP and AAP. He argued that:
- The scheme involved a door-to-door outreach.
- DMK was merely sending OTPs, not collecting Aadhaar details.
- The High Court granted the injunction despite no specific prayer for interim relief.
- Over 1.7 crore members had joined during the 45-day programme.
- No police complaints were filed against the party’s actions.
"This injunction has brought my programme to a standstill... Every party is doing this, there is no complaint anywhere." — P. Wilson, Senior Advocate
Read also: High Court Dismisses Criminal Revision in Railway Protection Force Case
Justice Narasimha commended the High Court for showing sensitivity towards personal information, stating the issue was indeed serious.
He emphasized the right of citizens to political freedom and privacy:
"Citizens have a right to be flexible in their choices of the party... What the High Court did is right." — Justice Narasimha
He further remarked that:
- Just because other parties conduct similar drives doesn’t make it valid.
- Collecting such data could infringe upon a person’s right to privacy and freedom under Article 21.
- Lawyers should act as professionals and not as party spokespersons.
“You are appearing as a lawyer, first of all. Don’t get involved in it.” - Justice Narasimha to P. Wilson
Read also: SC Denies Plea Against Raj Thackeray, Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay HC
Background
The matter originated from a writ petition filed in the Madras High Court by Rajkumar, who alleged that the DMK’s scheme involved unauthorised collection of Aadhaar details for political use. The petitioner sought:
- Declaration of the scheme as unconstitutional.
- A probe by UIDAI and the Central Government.
The High Court expressed concern about:
- How the data is stored and used.
- The impact on voter privacy and political affiliation.
- Reference to the Draft Data Protection Bill, even though it is not yet law.
Hence, the High Court granted an interim injunction restraining DMK from sending OTP verification messages till privacy concerns were fully addressed.
In SLP(C) No. 20528/2025, titled Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam vs. Rajkumar & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s interim order and dismissed the Special Leave Petition, clarifying that all pending applications stood disposed of.
“The Court has to protect the citizens.” — Justice Narasimha on data privacy
Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Represented by its General Secretary vs. Rajkumar & Others
Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Civil)
SLP(C) No.: 20528/2025
Date of Supreme Court Order: 04-08-2025