New Delhi: Tamil Nadu’s long-running flagpole controversy took a dramatic twist Monday, with the Supreme Court ordering status quo over removal of political flagpoles across the state. Earlier this month, the top court had upheld a Madras High Court order directing the removal of all such flagpoles from public places, irrespective of who had erected them.
Re-agitating the issue before the Supreme Court was P. Shanmugam, state secretary of Communist Party of India (Marxist), whose petition said that for parties in Tamil Nadu, flagpoles are not just rods of steel and paint, but markers of “ideology, values” and “identity”.
Flagpoles, the petition argued, are a form of constitutionally protected expression. Pulling them down isn’t housekeeping, but a political party’s “symbolic form of expression of political identity, association, and ideology, falling squarely within the protection of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution”, it said.
Origin of the pole problem
The row took shape when the state highways department ordered the removal of flagpoles from public spaces on 29 November, 2024. Within days, petitions challenging the move reached the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench. Petitioners called the order “disproportionate” and “intrusive”, pointing out that flagpoles have been part of Tamil Nadu’s political streetscape for decades.
In December, another petition was filed challenging the order and seeking permission to erect the Anaithu India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kalagam party’s flagpole in Madurai city.
High court’s stance
On 27 January this year, a single judge bench of the high court dropped a hammer. In seven sweeping directions, it ordered the removal of all permanent flagpoles erected by political parties, community groups and religious associations on pavements, road junctions, bus stops and other public places.
By this order, parties were given 12 weeks to comply, with officials authorised to recover removal costs if they didn’t. Public land, the court declared, was meant for public use, and not for political advertising. The order went a step further, imposing a blanket ban on new permissions for permanent flagpoles on public land. Private installations were allowed only with prior approval. Temporary poles for rallies or campaigns were permitted, if rent was paid and the site restored afterwards. District collectors and department heads were tasked with strict enforcement.
Pursuant to this order, the authorities started removing the flagpoles and issued notices to the CPI(M) in various districts, directing the removal.
‘We were not heard’
That was when Shanmugam stepped in. His petition in the top court argued that the high court had passed its sweeping order without hearing the affected parties, which was a “violation of the principles of natural justice”.
He sought protection for his party’s flagpoles in Madurai, framing the fight as more than just about poles—a question of “democratic expression”. For the CPI(M), his petition said, the red flag has the Hammer, Sickle and Star. “The Hammer and Sickle are a symbol representing proletarian solidarity between agricultural and industrial workers—the Hammer representing the workers and the sickle representing the peasants.”
Denying the right to display it, he argued, was to silence the party’s “identity” itself. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and association. “Symbolic expression”, Shanmugam insisted, falls squarely under these protections, and a blanket ban was neither reasonable nor proportionate.
The procedural knot
On 13 August, the bench dismissed his writ appeal, reasoning that the issue was already “settled”. The logic was that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed a petition by another individual, Ammavasi Thevar, on the same issue. The matter, the court declared, was “no more res integra”, meaning no longer open to debate.
Shanmugam countered by saying that he wasn’t even a party to that earlier case. A non-speaking dismissal by the Supreme Court, he argued, cannot become a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. Nor did it trigger res judicata, which applies only when the same parties re-litigate the same issue. His right to challenge the order, he insisted, was still intact. Thus, the matter reached the top court again.
SC first says no, then pauses
Initially, the Supreme Court wasn’t swayed either. On 8 August, a bench led by Justice J.K. Maheshwari dismissed a plea against the 27 January order, bluntly asking, “How can you use government land for political benefits?”
On 11 August, another appeal—this time by a supporter of Anaithu India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kalagam that had been denied permission for a flagpole in Madurai—also failed. The court reaffirmed that public spaces cannot be turned into permanent political property.
But on 25 August, hearing Shanmugam’s fresh petition, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta pressed pause. “Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. Until further orders, the parties are to maintain status quo with respect to the subject flagpoles, as it exists today,” the court said. In essence, flagpoles already standing will stay where they are until the case is heard fully.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Why former SC, HC judges are criticising ‘prejudicial’ reading of 2011 Salwa Judum judgment