)
Even a fortnight after the Supreme Court issued guidelines to regulate government advertisements, the front pages of all major dailies continue to be dominated by advertisements issued by both the Central and the state governments, although with one change: the pictures of state chief ministers and cabinet ministers are missing from them. Nevertheless, the continuation of these advertisements has raised a valid question: Has the Supreme Court’s judgment fallen short of its aim?
The decision of the apex court came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by two organisations — Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation.
The petitioners had argued that public money was being wasted by governments — both central and states — on such advertisements, primarily to project individual functionaries of the government or a political party, and not for public use.
This judgment of the court has been challenged by the Tamil Nadu government, which last week filed a review petition arguing that the court violated the federal principle of the Constitution.
The petitioners had argued that public money was being wasted by governments — both central and states — on such advertisements, primarily to project individual functionaries of the government or a political party, and not for public use.
This judgment of the court has been challenged by the Tamil Nadu government, which last week filed a review petition arguing that the court violated the federal principle of the Constitution.
Earlier, in the court, the Centre had argued that by fixing these guidelines, the courts were infringing upon an exclusive domain of the executive.
But the Supreme Court had set aside this argument by taking recourse in Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The court reasoned that since the Constitution endeavoured for social and economic justice, the courts cannot allow public funds to be wasted on such advertisements and would want this money to be better used. The court’s case was also helped by the fact that there were few rules that governed such advertisements.
But the Supreme Court had set aside this argument by taking recourse in Part IV of the Constitution, which deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The court reasoned that since the Constitution endeavoured for social and economic justice, the courts cannot allow public funds to be wasted on such advertisements and would want this money to be better used. The court’s case was also helped by the fact that there were few rules that governed such advertisements.
However, the judgement also listed a few exceptions where governments could continue using public funds for advertisements. Recent advertisements issued by both state and Centre have taken refuge here.
First, the judgment itself allows the government to continue publishing most of the advertisements. For instance, the court allows the governments to issue advertisements commemorating their anniversaries — whether monthly or yearly — if they carry alongside government’s achievements. The court reasoned that such advertisements play the role of informing the citizens. For a similar reason, the court allows the government to publish advertisements announcing new projects or policies.
Considering a large portion of the government advertisements will be covered under the above category, the court’s judgment can’t be expected to save a considerable amount of public money.
Even today, front pages of all national dailies are adorned by a four-page advertisement issued by the Tamil Nadu government. They advertisement reads thus: ‘Glorious rule of four years. Amma’s rule forever.’
Second, the judgment sets aside the recommendation of a court-appointed committee, which had suggested that government advertisements should carry photographs of only the President, Prime Minister, governors and chief ministers. Instead, the court has ruled that only images of the President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India should be printed.
The court has not explained why it has drawn a distinction between a Chief Minister and the Prime Minister. The Tamil Nadu government’s review petition relies on this logic.
The court has not explained why it has drawn a distinction between a Chief Minister and the Prime Minister. The Tamil Nadu government’s review petition relies on this logic.
Third: Will the judgment ensure end creation of ‘political cult’ using public funds? A day after the judgment came, the Ministry of Minority Affairs issued an advertisement which announced launching of ‘Usttad’— a government scheme for traditional artisans and craftsmen. The advertisement didn’t carry the picture of the minority affairs minister, but carried her name in a big font. However, a quarter of the advertisement was occupied by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s picture. Again today, the Prime Minister’s office has issued an advertisement with his picture occupying a significant position. The judgment could trigger the process of glorification of a sole leader.
Fourth, in its effort to secure freedom for the press, the court has ordered to the DAVP (Directorate of Audio, Visual Publicity) to distribute advertisements in newspapers on the basis of circulation. While the intentions of the court can’t be doubted, this particular suggestion overlooks that circulation is just one of the many criteria which should determine the distribution of an advertisement. This seems like a TRP version for the print. Instead, the court should have let such commercial matters to be handled by the DAVP or suggested an alternative course.
