GOVERNMENT ADS-PM & PRESIDENT PHOTOS
Context:
The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to include the photographs of the President of India & Prime Minister in advertising the 44th Chess Olympiad underway in Chennai.
2015 Ruling:
- In Common Cause vs Union of India, the Supreme Court sought to regulate the way government spends on advertisements.
- It essentially regulated the 2007 New Advertisement Policy of the Government of India.
- The petitioners argued that there is arbitrary spending on advertisements by the government.
- The allegations ranged from wastage of public money for political mileage to using advertisements as a tool to Manipulate media.
|
Since the primary cause of govt. advertisements are to use public funds to inform the public of their rights, obligations and entitlements as well as to explain Government policies, programs, services & initiatives. When these requisites are not fulfilled in a government advertisement, then the whole purpose would be frustrated. |
- Patronization of any particular media house must be avoided & award of advertisements must be on an equal basis to all newspapers that may be categorized depending upon their circulation.
- The DAVP-Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity, guidelines do not deal with the said aspect of the matter & hence the necessity of incorporating the same in the present directions to ensure the independence, impartiality, and neutrality of the fourth estate which is vital to the growth, sustenance of democracy will have to be weighed.
- A three-judge Bench including the Chief Justice of India, set up a committee to suggest a better policy.
Suggestions:
The three-member committee suggested a fresh policy- the Government Advertisements Guidelines 2014 with 5 broad principles-
- Advertising campaigns are to be related to government responsibilities.
- Materials should be presented in an objective, fair manner and designed to meet the objectives of the campaign.
- Advertisements must not be directed at promoting the political interests of a party.
- Campaigns, use be justified and undertaken cost-effectively.
- Advertisements must comply with legal requirements and financial regulations.
Supreme Court Ruling
SC accepted the committee report except for a few issues-
- The appointment of an ombudsman to oversee the implementation of the guidelines.
- A special performance audit of government spending.
- An embargo on publication of advertisements on the eve of elections.
The ruling mandated that government advertisements will not contain a political party’s symbol, logo or flag & are required to be politically neutral & must refrain from glorifying political personalities.
Photographs in Advertisements:
- The SC agreed with the committee’s suggestions “that photographs of leaders should be avoided & only the photographs of President/Prime Minister/Governor/Chief Minister shall be used for effective government messaging”.
- The Attorney General opposed the recommendations arguing that if the PM’s photograph is allowed in the advertisement, then the same right should be available to his cabinet colleagues as the PM is the “1st among the equals”.
- The court, while restricting the recommendation to the photos of the President & Prime Minister, added the photograph of the Chief Justice of India to that list of exceptions.
- Advertisements issued to commemorate the anniversaries of acknowledged personalities like the father of the Nation would of course carry the photograph of the departed leader.
- In 2018, the Centre & States including Karnataka, West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh sought a review of the verdict on the ground that not permitting the publication of the CM’s photograph would violate the federal structure.
- An SC Bench relaxed the bar, by allowing pictures of Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, Governors, and State ministers in government advertisements.
Takeaways from SC & HC verdicts:
- The SC ruling stepped into content regulation, which is a facet of the right to freedom of speech & expression, and was also in the domain of making policy.
- This raised questions about the judiciary stepping into the executive’s domain.
- The SC ruling did not mandate the publication of the photograph of the PM, or President, but only restricts the publication of photos of government officials other than the President, PM, CJI, or Governor.
- In an opposition-ruled state like Tamil Nadu, exclusion of the PM’s photo is seen as a political move.
- Tamil Nadu grove told the court that since the Presidential elections were not concluded, it didn’t include the photos of the President & there was always a delay in receiving consent from his office on including his photograph.
Conclusion
The high court said that considering the national interest in the issue, the excuses taken by the state cannot be accepted.
