Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2003
Common Cause .... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Union of India .... Respondent(s)

WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 197 OF 200
J U D G M E N T
P.S!"#!$%&!'( CJI.
1) These writ petitions are filed in public interest, under
rticle !" of the Constitution of India, to throw li#ht on the
endurin# issue of use of publicl$ funded #o%ernment
ad%ertisin# campai#ns as de facto political ad%ertisin#
can%ass which is %iolati%e of rticles 1& and "1 of the
Constitution. 'ith the increasin# awareness and emphasis on
transparenc$ in the #o%ernance of the countr$, the public
senses the need to restrain the misuse of public funds for
furtherin# the political moti%es. These petitions ha%e been
1
Page 2
brou#ht as a class action b$ certain re#istered societies %i(.,
Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest )iti#ation
see*in# a writ in the nature of mandamus restrainin# the
Union of India and all the +tate ,o%ernments from usin#
public funds for ad%ertisin# in a manner so as to pro-ect the
personalities, parties or particular #o%ernments and for
la$in# down bindin# #uidelines which will pre%ent the abuse
of public funds b$ such ad%ertisin#.
") The immediate cause of filin# these writ petitions in
"..! and "..& respecti%el$ is stated to be the numerous full
pa#e ad%ertisements in the print media and repeated
ad%ertisements in the electronic media b$ the Central
,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments and its a#encies,
instrumentalities includin# public sector underta*in#s which
pro-ect political personalities and proclaim the achie%ements
of particular political #o%ernments and parties at the
e/pense of the public e/che0uer. It is also the assertion of
the petitioners that such ad%ertisements become more
blatant and assumes alarmin# proportions -ust before the
announcement of the #eneral elections. ccordin#l$, it is the
2
Page 3
stand of the petitioners that such deliberate misuse of public
funds b$ the Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments, their
1epartments and instrumentalities of the +tate is destructi%e
to the rule of law. 2urther, it allows the parties in power to
patroni(e publications and media or#ani(ations affiliated to
the parties in power and also to #et fa%ourable media
co%era#e b$ selecti%e dispersal of the ad%ertisin# bonan(a.
!) It is pro-ected that the use of public funds for
ad%ertisin# b$ public authorities to pro-ect particular
personalities, parties or #o%ernments without an$ attendant
public interest is mala fide and arbitrar$ and amounts to
%iolation of rticle 1& of the Constitution of India. It is also
hi#hli#hted that use and wasta#e of public funds in political
moti%ated ad%ertisements desi#ned to pro-ect particular
personalit$, part$ or ,o%ernment b$ wastin# public mone$ is
also in %iolation of the fundamental ri#hts under rticle "1
because of di%ersion of resources b$ the #o%ernments for
partisan interests. +uch %iolation, therefore, attracts the
remed$ under rticle !" for the enforcement of fundamental
ri#hts of the citi(ens. It is the stand of the petitioners herein
3
Page 4
that a writ of mandamus in such a situation, if it is to be
effecti%e, needs to be accompanied b$ #uidelines re#ulatin#
the same and we accede to the stand of the petitioners.
&) 3n the other hand, Union of India and %arious +tates
submitted the necessit$ of ad%ertisement in the print and
electronic media for dissemination of information in a
democratic setup and further pointed out that since similar
issues ha%e alread$ been raised earlier and ad-udicated upon
b$ this Court as also some 4i#h Courts such as 5omba$ and
1elhi, hence a*in #rounds should not be entertained in these
petitions. 'ith these a%erments and in the li#ht of the earlier
decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan & Anr. %s.
U.O.I. & Ors. 6'rit Petition (Ci%il) 7o. 8! of "..9: decided
on 1...1.".11, the respondents herein pra$ed for dismissal
of both the writ petitions.
9) 4eard ;s. ;eera 5hatia, ;r. Prashant 5hushan, learned
counsel for the petitioners and ;r. <. Radha*rishnan, learned
senior counsel for the respondent=Union of India. 'e also
heard respecti%e counsel for %arious +tates.
4
Page 5
D%$)*$$%+,-
>) )et us, at the outset, consider the ob-ection raised b$
the respondents re#ardin# the maintainabilit$ of the
petitions primaril$ before we would deliberate on the
contentions on the merits.
?) In the counter affida%it filed on behalf of the Union of
India, it has been stated that the issues raised in the present
petitions are no lon#er res integra but are in fact res judicata
in the li#ht of earlier decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali
Khan (supra) and other matters decided b$ the 4i#h Court
of 1elhi in Umesh Mohan Sethi %s. Union of India & Anr.
6'rit Petition (Ci%il) 7o. "@"> of ".1": decided on 1".1".".1"
and the 5omba$ 4i#h Court in Laxman Moreshwar
Mahurar %s. !alrishna "a#nnath Kiniar and Ors. IR
1@>1 5om 1>?.
8) In response to the ob-ection raised, learned counsel for
the petitioners submitted that the principle of constructi%e
res judicata cannot be made applicable in each and e%er$
5
Page 6
public interest liti#ation and relied on the -ud#ment of this
Court in $ural Liti#ation and %ntitlement Kendra %s.
State of U& (1@8@) +upp (1) +CC 9.&, wherein it was held
thatA=
B1>. ...'e ma$ not be ta*en to ha%e said that for public
interest liti#ations, procedural laws do not appl$. t the
same time it has to be remembered that e%er$ technicalit$
in the procedural law is not a%ailable as a defence when a
matter of #ra%e public importance is for consideration
before the Court. C%en if it is said that there was a final
order, in a dispute of this t$pe it would be difficult to
entertain the plea of res -udicataDE
Thus, in the li#ht of the abo%e, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the decision rendered in Manzoor
Ali Khan (supra) should not pre%ent this Court from
decidin# the issues raised in the present petitions.
@) 2urther, it is the stand of the petitioners that a petition
filed in public interest cannot be held to be an ad%ersarial
s$stem of ad-udication and the petitioners in their case
merel$ brou#ht it to the notice of the Court as to how and in
what manner the public interest is bein# -eopardi(ed b$
arbitrar$ and capricious action of the authorities and,
therefore, the principle of constructi%e res judicata cannot be
6
Page 7
made applicable in each and e%er$ public interest liti#ation,
irrespecti%e of the nature of liti#ation itself and its impact on
the societ$ and the lar#er public interest, which is bein#
ser%ed. Placin# reliance on the reasonin# rendered in the
aforesaid %erdict the ob-ection raised herein stands
o%erruled.
1.) In the li#ht of this, now let us e/amine the submissions
of the petitioners on merits. The decision of this Court in
Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) was based on two premises,
firstl$, that #uideline #o%ernin# the same sub-ect matter
alread$ e/ists as framed b$ the 1irectorate of d%ertisin#
and Visual Publicit$ (1VP) as well as 1epartment of
Information in each of the +tates and secondl$, that the
matter is s0uarel$ co%ered a#ainst the petitioners in %iew of
the -ud#ment of the 5omba$ 4i#h Court in the case of
Laxman Moreshwar Mahurar (supra). It is the stand of
the petitioners that the 1VP #uidelines relied upon b$ this
Court in the Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) and b$ the
respondents in its counter affida%it in the present case are
irrele%ant for the consideration of the issues raised in the
7
Page 8
present writ petitions. 2urther, it was submitted that the
decision in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurar (supra) is
clearl$ distin#uishable with the facts and issues raised in the
present public interest liti#ation. 'e shall anal$se both
these #rounds in detail in the ensuin# para#raphs.
11) Primaril$, ob-ection a#ainst admittin# these writ
petitions was that there e/ists substanti%e #uidelines
re#ulatin# the ,o%ernmentsF ad%ertisements issued b$ the
1VP and thus the tas* of this Court will be rendered
infructuous. ;r. <. Radha*rishnan, learned senior counsel for
the Union of India reiterated the stand ta*en b$ the
,o%ernment in their counter=affida%it filed in the $ear "..!
as well as in ".1! and brou#ht to our notice the 7ew
d%ertisement Polic$ 6with effect from .".1.."..?:
formulated b$ the ;inistr$ of Information and 5roadcastin#,
1VP, which is the nodal a#enc$ of the ,o%ernment of India
for ad%ertisement b$ %arious ;inistries and or#ani(ations of
,o%ernment of India includin# public sector underta*in#s
and autonomous bodies. It is seen from the d%ertisement
Polic$ of "..? that the primar$ ob-ecti%e of the ,o%ernment
8
Page 9
is to secure the widest possible co%era#e of the intended
content or messa#e throu#h newspapers and -ournals of
current affairs as well as +cience, rt, )iterature, +ports,
2ilms, Cultural ffairs, etc. The Polic$ further states that in
releasin# ad%ertisements to newspapersG-ournals, 1VP does
not ta*e into account the political affiliation or editorial
policies of newspapersG-ournals. 4owe%er, it states that
1VP would a%oid releasin# ad%ertisements to
newspapersG-ournals, which incite or tend to incite communal
passion, preach %iolence, offend the so%erei#nt$ and
inte#rit$ of India or sociall$ accepted norms of public
decenc$ and beha%iour. The Polic$ dated .".1.."..?
supersedes all earlier orders and the same is the 7ew
d%ertisement Polic$ of the ,o%ernment of India. The said
Polic$ contains "? clauses. readin# of these clauses shows
that the ,o%ernment ad%ertisements are not intended to
#i%e financial assistance to the newspapersG-ournals. 1VP
maintains a list of newspapersG-ournals appro%ed for release
of ad%ertisements b$ empanellin# acceptable
newspapersG-ournals. It further reinforces that due care is
9
Page 10
ta*en to empanel newspapersG-ournals ha%in# readership
from different sections of the societ$ in different parts of the
countr$. The Polic$ also ma*es it clear that all Central
;inistriesG1epartmentsGattached and +ubordinate
officesGfield offices shall route their ad%ertisements, includin#
displa$ ad%ertisements, throu#h 1VP. It also maintains a
Panel d%isor$ Committee (PC) for considerin# applications
of newspapersG-ournals for bein# empanelled for publishin#
,o%ernment ad%ertisements. This Committee shall be
headed b$ the 1irector ,eneral, 1VP and shall include the
dditional 1irector ,eneral (;edia H
Communication)G1eput$ 1irector ,eneral (;edia H
Communication) in the Press Information 5ureau (PI5), Press
Re#istrarG1eput$ Press Re#istrar and 1irectorG1eput$
+ecretar$GUnder +ecretar$ in the ;inistr$ of Information and
5roadcastin# dealin# with Print ;edia. The Committee will
also ha%e one representati%e each from the ssociation of
bi#, medium and small newspapers. The recommendations
of the PC as accepted b$ the 1,, 1VP re#ardin#
empanelment of a newspaper shall be final. It also shows
10
Page 11
that all empanelled newspapersGpublications will be as*ed to
enter into a rate contract, which will be %alid for a period of
three $ears. It further pro%ides that the rate structure for
pa$ment a#ainst ad%ertisements released b$ 1VP will be
wor*ed out as per the recommendations of the Rate
+tructure Committee. The rates depend on certified
circulation of a newspaper.
1") perusal of %arious clauses in the d%ertisement Polic$
of the ,o%ernment of India dated .".1.."..? as elaborated
in the aforesaid para#raph shows that all the norms as
mentioned in %arious clauses are to be adhered to in o%erall
media strate#$ of the ;inistries and 1epartments to ensure
ma/imum co%era#e at optimum cost. Thus, it is %i%idl$ clear
that the 1VP #uidelines, which are a%ailable in the public
domain, onl$ deal with the eli#ibilit$ and empanelment of the
newspapersG-ournals or other media, their rates of pa$ment,
and such li*e matters. 5esides, it onl$ specifies that in
releasin# ad%ertisement to newspapersG-ournals, the 1VP
would not ta*e into account the political affiliation or editorial
policies of newspapersG-ournals. 4ence, it is e%ident that
11
Page 12
there is no polic$ or #uideline to re#ulate the content of
,o%ernment ad%ertisements and to e/clude the possibilit$ of
an$ mala fide use or misuse of public funds on
ad%ertisements in order to #ain political milea#e b$ the
political establishment.
1!) s far as the second ob-ection with re#ard to
applicabilit$ of the decision in Laxman Moreshwar
Moharar (supra) is concerned, we ha%e anal$(ed the
same and are of the co#ent %iew that the said decision of the
5omba$ 4i#h Court is clearl$ distin#uishable from the facts
and issues raised in the present petitions. The aforesaid case
pertains to applicabilit$ or non=applicabilit$ of a particular
rule %i(., Rule 18@ of the )aw 3fficers (Conditions of +er%ice)
Rules and Rules for the Conduct of the )e#al ffairs of the
,o%ernment whereas the issues raised in these writ petitions
are not pursuant to %iolation of an$ specific rule or law rather
a 0uestion of public importance has been raised as to
whether the +tate, which is dut$ bound to allocate its
resources for the ma/imum public #ood, can ca%alierl$ spend
hu#e sums of public funds in order to deri%e political
12
Page 13
milea#e. Thus, the ratio laid down in Laxman Moreshwar
Moharar (supra) is not rele%ant for consideration of issues
raised in these writ petitions.
1&) )earned senior counsel for the respondent = U3I also
made reference to the decision in Umesh Mohan Sethi
(supra) rendered on 1".1".".1" b$ the 1elhi 4i#h Court
which pertained to similar issues as raised in these writ
petitions to substantiate their stand. In Umesh Mohan
Sethi (supra)' it was held that if the ,o%ernment purports
to spend mone$ for a purpose which it characteri(es as a
public purpose thou#h in point of fact it is not a public
purpose, the proper place to critici(e the action of the
,o%ernment would be the le#islature or the ppropriation
Committee and Courts are not the forum in which the
,o%ernmentFs action could be sou#ht to be critici(ed or
restrained. 5esides, the 1elhi 4i#h Court relied on the
decision of Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) rendered b$ this
Court and dismissed the petition as misconcei%ed.
13
Page 14
19) )earned counsel for the petitioners responded to this
contention b$ assertin# that an$ #o%ernment acti%it$ has to
satisf$ the test of reasonableness and public interest and
while dealin# with public funds and propert$, public interest
is of paramount consideration. In Kasturi Lal Lashmi
$edd( %s. State of "&K (1@8.) & +CC 1, this Court has held
as underA=
B1". Dn$ action ta*en b$ the ,o%ernment with a %iew to
#i%in# effect to an$ one or more of the 1irecti%e Principles
would ordinaril$, sub-ect to an$ constitutional or le#al
inhibitions or other o%er=ridin# considerations, 0ualif$ for
bein# re#arded as reasonable, while an action which is
inconsistent with or runs counter to a 1irecti%e Principle
would incur the reproach of bein# unreasonable.E
III III III
B1&. 'here an$ ,o%ernmental action fails to satisf$ the
test of reasonableness and public interest discussed abo%e
and is found to be wantin# in the 0ualit$ of
reasonableness or lac*in# in the element of public
interest, it would be liable to be struc* down as in%alid. I"
'*$" .+//+0 !$ ! ,1)1$$!23 )+2+//!23 .2+' "#%$
42+4+$%"%+, "#!" "#1 G+&12,'1," )!,,+" !)" %, !
'!,,12 0#%)# 0+*/5 61,1.%" ! 42%&!"1 4!2"3 !" "#1
)+$"( +. "#1 S"!"17 $*)# !, !)"%+, 0+*/5 61 6+"#
*,21!$+,!6/1 !,5 )+,"2!23 "+ 4*6/%) %,"121$"D..E
1>) In Shrileha )id(arthi %s. State of U& (1@@1) 1 +CC
"1", this Court une0ui%ocall$ re-ected the ar#ument based
on the theor$ of absolute discretion of the administrati%e
14
Page 15
authorities and immunit$ of their action from -udicial re%iew
and obser%edA
BIt can no lon#er be doubted at this point of time that
rticle of the Constitution of India applies also to matters
of ,o%ernmental polic$ and if the polic$ or an$ action of
the #o%ernment, e%en in contractual matters, fails to
satisf$ the test of reasonableness, it would be
unconstitutional.E
+imilar reasonin# was rendered in $amana *a(aram
Shett( %s. +he International Airport Authorit( of India
(1@?@) ! +CR 1.1& and in ,ol. A.S. San#wan %s. Union of
India (1@8.) +upp +CC 99@. 4ence, it was submitted that
-udicial re%iew of ,o%ernment policies is permissible if it does
not satisf$ the test of reasonableness and a#ainst the public
interest.
1?) lthou#h, as asserted b$ the respondents herein that it
is not the prima facie -urisdiction of this Court to e/amine
what constitutes as Bpublic purposeE or not howe%er, as per
-udicial precedents in Kasturi Lal Lashmi $edd( (supra)
and other case laws as stated abo%e, this Court is dut$ bound
to interfere whene%er the ,o%ernment acts in a manner,
which is unreasonable and contrar$ to public interest. In
15
Page 16
succinct, the ,o%ernment cannot act in a manner, which
would benefit a pri%ate part$ at the cost of the +tateJ such an
action would be both unreasonable and contrar$ to public
interest. The present writ petitions challen#e the
,o%ernment ad%ertisements of political nature at the cost of
the public e/che0uer on the #round that the$ are in %iolation
of rticles 1& and "1 of the Constitution. 'e shall e/amine
and scrutini(e the situation as portra$ed b$ the petitioners as
to whether there is need for specific #uidelines to be issued
b$ this Court to re#ulate the same.
18) The petitioners further submitted that ad%ertisement
campai#ns are underta*en ostensibl$ to ad%ertise certain
public wor*s and almost all these ad%ertisements contain
photo#raphs of the ;inisters and important political
personalities of the ,o%ernment, which clearl$ show that
these ad%ertisement are framed for the purpose of
hi#hli#htin# the achie%ements of the incumbent #o%ernment
and aim to create an impression that those particular
political personalities were directl$ responsible for pro%idin#
public benefits to the people. In succinct, the use of public
16
Page 17
office and public funds for personal, political or partisan
purposes is clearl$ malafide, ille#al and not permissible
under the Constitution. Thus, it is the stand of the petitioners
that e/penditure on such ad%ertisements is blatant misuse of
public funds b$ the Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments,
their departments and instrumentalities of the +tate as it
fosters wasta#e of scarce funds of the e/che0uer in
promotin# pri%ate partisan interests as a#ainst public
interest that is destructi%e of the rule of law.
1@) Con%ersel$, the ,o%ernment of India, in their counter=
affida%it claimed that >.K of the ad%ertisements released b$
the 1irectorate of d%ertisin# and Visual Publicit$ (1VP) on
behalf of %arious ;inistriesG1epartmentsGPublic +ector
Underta*in#s (P+Us) of the Central ,o%ernment relate to
classified or displa$Gclassified cate#or$ such as UP+CG++C or
recruitment, tender and public notices, etc. The respondents
asserted that #o%ernment ad%ertisements sometime carr$
messa#es from national leaders, ;inisters and di#nitaries
accompanied with their photo#raphs. 4owe%er, it is their
stand that the purpose of such ad%ertisements is not to #i%e
17
Page 18
personal publicit$ to the leaders or to the political parties
the$ belon# to rather the ob-ecti%e is to let the people *now
and ha%e authentic information about the pro#ress of the
pro#rammesGperformance of the #o%ernment the$ elected
and form informed opinions, which is one of the fundamental
ri#hts of the citi(ens in our democrac$ as enshrined in the
Constitution of India. The composition of ad%ertisements
issued b$ 1VP durin# the $ears "...=.1, "..1=." and
".."=.! in respect of %arious ;inistriesG1epartments is #i%en
in the form of anne/ure to the counter=affida%it. It is the
stand of the ,o%ernment that the ob-ecti%e of displa$in# the
ad%ertisements issued b$ 1VP on behalf of the
;inistriesG1epartments of the ,o%ernment of India is to
create awareness amon# the people about %arious policies,
pro#rammes and achie%ements of the ,o%ernment and
ad%ertisin# is an inte#ral part of dissemination of
information, which is essential in a democrac$.
".) The contentions raised b$ the respondents are based on
clear principle that is bound to be accepted on the face of it.
The stand that ,o%ernment ad%ertisin# is a mode for the
18
Page 19
,o%ernment to disseminate to the members of the public, of
information about a #o%ernment pro#ram, polic$ or initiati%e,
or about an$ public health or safet$ or other matter(s), that
is funded b$ or on behalf of a ,o%ernment a#enc$, is an
outri#ht fact and is a must in our democratic setup. This
Court, in its Constitutional wisdom, understands that it is onl$
throu#h such ad%ertisements that the ,o%ernment
communicates with its citi(ens which pla$s an important role
in efficientl$ and effecti%el$ achie%in# the #oals of public
polic$.
"1) t the same time, the stand of the petitioners in these
writ petitions is also not entirel$ misconcei%ed. +ince the
primar$ cause of #o%ernment ad%ertisement is to use public
funds to inform the public of their ri#hts, obli#ations, and
entitlements as well as to e/plain ,o%ernment policies,
pro#rams, ser%ices and initiati%es, howe%er, when these
re0uisites are not fulfilled in a ,o%ernment ad%ertisement
than the whole purpose would be frustrated. The petitioners
throu#h anne/ures ha%e brou#ht to the notice of this Court
numerous ,o%ernment ad%ertisements released b$ the
19
Page 20
Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments, their departments
and instrumentalities of the +tate which fail to disseminate
an$ information to the public of their ri#hts and entitlements
in the ,o%ernment policies rather onl$ #lorifies the
accomplishments of a particular ,o%ernment. The petitioners
herein ha%e disputed onl$ such ad%ertisements, which the$
plead to be wasta#e of public e/che0uer for political milea#e.
'hile the boundar$ lines can blur, we need to distin#uish
between the ad%ertisements that are part of ,o%ernment
messa#in# and dail$ business and ad%ertisements that are
politicall$ moti%ated. It is $et further pleaded that e%en the
Clection Commission of India thou#h had e/pressed concern
but could not do an$thin# owin# to lac* of -urisdiction in the
matter.
"") lthou#h this issue of concern ma$ be new to India but
not for other countries. ,o%ernments around the world spend
hu#e amount of mone$ $earl$ for ad%ertisements in their
local media and most of the countries ha%e faced similar fate
of situation as portra$ed in these petitions. The solution to
this crisis was arri%ed at b$ framin# the ,o%ernment
20
Page 21
ad%ertisin# #uidelines, which set out the policies and
processes that appl$ to ,o%ernment ad%ertisement. 2ew
countries which adopted ,o%ernment ad%ertisin# policies are
as underA=
Australia
ustralia adopted new polic$ to re#ulate ,o%ernment
ad%ertisement in response to nearl$ a decade of abuse,
durin# which public ad%ertisin# was corruptl$ used to
promote a partisan a#enda. The focus of polic$
recommendations is to depolitici(e public ad%ertisin#,
pre%ent conflict of interest, and de%ol%e power in such a wa$
that no person or #roup can easil$ e/ploit public ad%ertisin#
funds for indi%idual or political #ains.
,anada
Canada also has strict conflict of interest #uidelines, which
promote transparenc$, accountabilit$ and separation of
authorit$ to discoura#e abuse of public ad%ertisin# funds for
indi%idual, financial or political #ains.
21
Page 22
+imilar policies e/ist in almost all de%eloped countries to
chec* the abuse of ,o%ernment ad%ertisements for pri%ate
benefits.
"!) There are fi%e principles laid down in -uidelines On
Information and Ad.ertisin# ,ampai#ns /( Australian
-o.ernment *epartments and A#en0ies' which will be
applicable to all ,o%ernment ad%ertisin# campai#ns.
Principle 1: Campai#ns should be rele%ant to #o%ernment
responsibilities.
Principle 2: Campai#n materials should be presented in an
ob-ecti%e, fair, and accessible manner and be
desi#ned to meet the ob-ecti%es of the
campai#n.
Principle 3: Campai#n materials should be ob-ecti%e and not
directed at promotin# part$ political interests.
Principle 4: Campai#ns should be -ustified and underta*en in
an efficient, effecti%e and rele%ant manner.
Principle 5: Campai#ns must compl$ with le#al re0uirements
and procurement policies and procedures.
"&) In these circumstances, concedin# that the e/istin#
1VP polic$G#uidelines do not #o%ern the issues raised in
these writ petitions and do not la$ down an$ criteria for the
22
Page 23
ad%ertisements to 0ualif$ for Bpublic purposeE as opposed to
partisan ends and political milea#e, there is a need for
substanti%e #uidelines to be issued b$ this Court until the
le#islature enacts a law in this re#ard. The petitioners
throu#h their written submissions ha%e proposed #uidelines
in this re#ard, howe%er, on #oin# throu#h the same, we
reco#ni(ed that the petitioners herein ha%e basicall$ adopted
the proposed #uidelines %erbatim from other -urisdiction %i(.,
ustralia. ccordin#l$, we do not thin* that it will be
appropriate for this Court to adopt the #uidelines of other
countr$ without application of mind and appreciation of
situation in our countr$.
"9) <eepin# in mind that the time a%ailable to this Court is
limited and the sub-ect matter for which #uidelines are to be
framed is sensational and si#nificant, we deem it proper to
constitute a Committee consistin# of three members to
underta*e the tas* of su##estin# #uidelines to this Court
after an intricate stud$ of all the best practices in public
ad%ertisements in different -urisdictions and to submit the
same before this Court preferabl$ within a period of three
23
Page 24
months. The Committee will consist of the followin#
membersA
1) Prof. (1r.) 7.R. ;adha%a ;enon,
former 1irector, 7ational Ludicial cadem$, 5hopal
") ;r. T.<. Viswanathan,
former +ecretar$ ,eneral, )o* +abha
!) ;r. Ran-it <umar, +enior d%ocate
In order to coordinate and render assistance to the
Committee, we appoint the +ecretar$, ;inistr$ of Information
and 5roadcastin# as ;ember +ecretar$.
">) The matter be posted for further direction before this
Court on the e/pir$ of three months from toda$ alon# with
the su##estions as ma$ be submitted b$ the Committee
pursuant to this -ud#ment.
.DD.DDDDDDDDDDCLI.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
DDDD.DDDDDDDDDDL.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
DDDD.DDDDDDDDDDL.
(N.V. RAMANA)
7C' 1C)4IJ
PRI) "!, ".1&.
24