In News: The on Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to include the photographs of the President of India and Prime Minister in advertisements on the 44th Chess Olympiad underway in Chennai.
The HC relied on a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that issued guidelines on government spending on advertisements.
What was the 2015 ruling?
In Common Cause v Union of India, the SC sought to regulate the way the government spends on advertisements.
It essentially regulated the 2007 New Advertisement Policy of the Government of India.
The petitioners had 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.
The court ruled that
Since the primary cause of government advertisement is to use public funds to inform the public of their rights, obligations, and entitlements as well as to explain Government policies, programs, services and initiatives, however, when these requisites are not fulfilled in a government advertisement then the whole purpose would be frustrated
Patronization of any particular media house(s) must be avoided and award of advertisements must be on an equal basis to all newspapers who may, however, be categorized depending upon their circulation.
The DAVP (Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity) guidelines do not deal with the said aspect of the matter and hence the necessity of incorporating the same in the present directions to ensure the independence, impartiality and the neutrality of the fourth estate which is vital to the growth and sustenance of democracy will have to be weighed and considered by us
The bench also had set up a committee to suggest a better policy.
What did the committee suggest?
The three-member committee — comprising Prof N R Madhava Menon, T K Viswanathan, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar — suggested a fresh policy — the Government Advertisements (Content Regulation) Guidelines 2014 with five broad principles:
Advertising campaigns are to be related to government responsibilities
Materials should be presented in an objective, fair manner and designed to meet objectives of the campaign
Advertisements must not directed at promoting political interests of a party
campaigns must be justified and undertaken in a cost-effective manner
Advertisements must comply with legal requirements and financial regulations
What did the Supreme Court rule?
It largely accepted the committee report except on a few issues.
The ruling mandated that government advertisements will not contain a political party’s symbol, logo or flag and are required to be politically neutral and must refrain from glorifying political personalities.
What about photographs in advertisements?
The SC agreed with the committee’s suggestion that photographs of leaders should be avoided and only the photographs of the President/ Prime Minister or Governor/ Chief Minister shall be used for effective government messaging.
Then Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had opposed the recommendation 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 “first among the equals”.
The court, while restricting the recommendation to the photos of the President and Prime Minister, added the photograph of the Chief Justice of India to that list ofexceptions.
In 2018, the Centre and some states 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, allowing pictures of Union ministers, Chief Ministers, Governors and State ministers in government advertisements.
What are the takeaways from the SC ruling?
The SC ruling did not mandate publication of the photograph of the PM and President, but only restricts publication of photos of government officials other than the President, PM, CJI, CM and the Governor.
