Photographs of President, PM and CJI alone can be carried in Govt. ads, rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today ruled that photographs of political leaders should not be carried in government advertisements which are published using funds from government exchequer. However, exception has been carved out for Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India whose photographs can be used in such advertisements..The judgment was delivered by a Bench presided by Justice Ranjana Gogoi in petitions filed by NGOs Common Cause and Centre for PIL seeking an appropriate writ to restrain the Central government and State Governments from using public funds on Government advertisements which are primarily intended to project individual functionaries of the Government or a political party. The petitioners had also prayed for laying down of appropriate guidelines to regulate Government action in the matter so as to prevent misuse of public funds for such advertisements..On April 23, 2014, the Court had constituted a three member committee comprising NS Madhava Menon, T Viswanathan (former Secretary General of Lok Sabha) and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar to look into the issue and frame guidelines to regulate such ads. The Committee had submitted its report to the Court and the petitioners had then sought the implementation of the guidelines framed by the committee. The Court today accepted all the recommendations made by the committee except four recommendations..With regard to the publication of photographs, the Committee had recommended that photographs of President, Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Governors could be allowed. However, the Court departed from this recommendation and ruled that only photographs of President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India should be allowed. While observing that photographs have the potential of developing “personality cult and the image of one or a few individuals which is a direct antithesis of democratic functioning, the Court held the following:.“The legitimate and permissible object of an advertisement, as earlier discussed, can always be achieved without publication of the photograph of any particular functionary either in the State of a political party. We are, therefore, of the view that in departure to the views of the Committee which recommended permissibility of publication of the photographs of the President and Prime Minister of the country and Governor or Chief Minister of the State along with the advertisements, there should be an exception only in the case of the President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice of the country who may themselves decide the question. 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.”.The other recommendations of the Committee which the court has departed from are:.1. Instead of an Ombudsman as recommended by the Committee to receive complaints for violation of guidelines and to take action, the Court has directed the Central government to set up a three member committee to implement the guidelines and oversee such implementation..2. The recommendation that there should be a special audit was turned down by the Court which held that “the machinery available is adequate to ensure due performance as well as accountability and proper utilization of public money.”.3. The recommendation that there should be a special curb on advertisements on the eve of elections was turned down..In response to the argument advanced by the Centre that the Court should not interfere and legislate in the field as it is a matter of policy decision, the Court held the following: .“….in a situation where the field is open and uncovered by any government policy, to guide and control everyday governmental action, surely, in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, parameters can be laid down by this Court consistent with the objects enumerated by any of the provisions of Part IV. Such an exercise would be naturally time bound i.e. till the Legislature or the Executive, as the case may be, steps in to fulfill its constitutional role and authority by framing an appropriate policy.”.Read the full judgment below.