LexCOMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 543 COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2003) APRIL 23, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND N.V. RAMANA , JJ.] Administrative Law: Advertisement policy of Government of India - Judicial review of - Advertisement by Government using public funds A B c - Writ petition for laying down guidelines - Held: DA VP guidelines, which are available in the public domain, only deal with eligibility and empanelment of newspapers/journals or 0 other media, their rates of payment, and such like matters - There is no policy or guideline to regulate the content of Government advertisements and to exclude possibility of any ma/a fide use br misuse of public funds on advertisem'ents in order to gain political mileage by political establishment - E Although, prima facie, it is not jurisdiction of Supreme Court , to examine what constitutes as "public purpose", the Court is duty bound to interfere whenever Government acts in a manner, which is unreasonable and contrary to public interest - Writ petitions challenge Government advertisements of political nature at the cost of public exchequer on the ground F that they ar.e in violation of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Coostitution - Since existing DA VP po/icy/guidelines do not govern the issues raised in instant writ petitions and do not lay down any criteria for advertisements to qualify for "public purpose" as opposed to partisan ends and political mileage, there is a G need for substantive guidelines to be issued by Courl until legislature enacts a law in this regard - Committee constituted to suggest guidelines and submit the same to the Court - 543 H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. A Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 21 - Government of India Advertisement Policy of 2007. The instant writ petitions were filed in public interest, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the 8 Union of India and all the State Governments from using public funds for advertising in a manner so as to project the personalities, parties or particular governments and for laying down b;nding guidelines in order to prevent the abuse of public Hmds by such advertising. c D Primarily, objection against admitting the writ petitions was that there existed substantive guidelines regulating the Government advertisements issued by the DAVP and thus the task of the Supreme Court would be rendered infructuous. " Adjourning the matter, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is seen fr:om the Advertisement Policy of 2007 formulated by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, DAVP, that the primary objective of the E Government is to secure the wi~est possible coverage of. the intended content or message through newspapers and journals of current affairs as well as Science, Art, Literature, Sports, Films, Cultural Affairs, etc. The Policy further states that in releasing advertisements to F newspapers/journals, DAVP does not take into account the political affiliation or editorial policies of newspapers/ journals. The ..Policy dated 02.10.2007 supersedes all earlier orders and the same is the New Advertisement Policy of the Government of India. A perusal of the said G policy shows that all the norms as mentioned in various clauses are to be adhered to in overall media strategy of the Ministries and Departments to ensure maximum coverage at optimum cost. Thus, it is vividly clear that the DAVP guidelines, which are available in the public H domain, only deal with the eligibility and empanelment of COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF lNDIA , 545 1 the newspapers/journals or other media, th~ir rates of A payment, and such like matters. Besides, it only specifies that in releasing advertisement to newspapers/journals, the DAVP would not take into account the political affiliation or editorial policies of newspapers/journals. [para 11-12] [552-F-G; 553-A, H; 554-A-C] B 1.2. It is evident that there is no policy or guideline · to regulate the content of Government advertisements and to exclude the possibility of any ma/a· fide use or misuse of public funds on advertisements in order to gain political mileage by the political establishment. [para C 12] [554-C-D] Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of UP 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 690 = (1989) Supp (1) sec 504 - referred to. D ivlanzoor Ali Khan & Anr. vs. U. 0.1. & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 83 of 2005 decided by Supreme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.