COMMON CAUSE versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 13-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 5 S.C.R. 29 
COMMON CAUSE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.13 of 2003) 
MAY 13, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 142 - Exercise of 
A 
B 
c 
jurisdiction under - Writ Petition - To restrain the Union of 
India and all State Governments from using public funds on 
Government advertisements, to project individual 
functionaries of the Government or a political party- In terms o 
of the order of this Court, guidelines suggested by a 
Committee duly constituted by the Court as regards 
publication of advertisements by the Government -
Guidelines, whether commend acceptance and if so whether 
operative and enforceable u!Art. 142- Held: Where the field E 
is open and uncovered by any government policy, to guide 
and control everyday governmental action, in the exercise 
of jurisdiction u!Art. 142, parameters can be laid down by 
this Court- Recommendations with regard to the publication 
of photographs; appointment of Ombudsman; carrying out F 
independent audit and embargo on advertisements during 
election time not approved - Publication of photographs of 
functionaries of the State and political leaders, have the 
potential of developing the personality cult and the image of G 
a one or a few individuals which is a direct antithesis of 
democratic functioning -
Therefore, recommendations 
permitting publication of the photographs of the President 
and Prime Minister of the country and Governor or Chief 
Minister of the State a/ongwith the advertisements is departed H 
29 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A and 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 - Remaining 
recommendations of the Committee appear to be 
comprehensive, based on an analytical approach, are 
B accepted - Said recommendations would serve public 
interest by enabling dissemination of information and 
spreading awareness amongst the citizens of the government 
policies, achievements made and other measures - Since 
C the directions issued u!Art. 142 cannot be comprehensive, 
gaps, if any, would be filled up by the executive arm of the 
government. 
D 
E 
ManzoorA/i Khan &Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 
7 SCC 321; Umesh Mohan Sethi Vs. Union of India & 
Anr: WP (C) No.2926 of 2012 decided on 12.12.2012; 
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. Vs. State of 
Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1967 SC 1: (1966) 3 SCR 7 44; 
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru Vs. State of 
Kera/a &Anr. 1973 Suppl. SCR 1 : (1973) 4 SCC 225 
- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(2014) 1 sec 321 
F 
Referred to. 
Para 3 
(1966) 3 SCR 744 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
1973 Suppl. SCR 1 
Referred to. 
Para 7 
G 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) 
No. 13 of 2003 
H 
[Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India] 
WITH 
W. P. (C) Nos. 197/2004 and 302/2012 
COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 
31 
M. N. Krishnamani, Meera Bharti, Rishi Kesh, Prashant A 
Bhushan, Govind Jee, Vibhu Tiwari, K. V. Mohan, for the 
Appellant. 
Mukul Rohatgi, AG, Maninder Singh, ASG, lndu 
Malhotra, Suryanaryana Singh, S. S. Shamshery, AAGs, K. 
B 
Radha Krishnan, Shailendra Sharma, Mohan Prasad Gupta,· 
Harish K., B. B. Sawhney, Binu Tamta, V. Mahana, B. V. 
Balaram Das, Ajay Sharma, M. P. Gupta, M. Khairati, D. S. 
Mahra, Vikas Bansal, Mishra Saurabh, Bina Madhavan, 
Pragati Neekhra, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Sapam Biswajit C 
Meitei, Z. H. Issac Haiding, Ashok Kumar Singh, Siddharth 
Bhatnagar, Siddharth Mohan, RahulArya, Nirnimesh Dube, C. 
D. Singh, Apoorv Kurup, Sakshi Kakkar, Rohit Rathi, Gopal 
Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Shivam Singh, Manish Kumar, Pragyan D 
Sharma, Heshu Kajina, P. V. Yogeswaran, A. Mariarputham, 
Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan, K. Vijay Kumar,ArputhamAruna & 
Co., V. G Pragasam, S.Aristotle, Prabhu Rama Subramanian, 
Harshvardhan Jha, Aditya Narayan Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Ms. 
Udita Singh, Chander Prakash, Navnit Kumar, Corporate Law E 
Group, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal, GissAnotny, Puja Singh, Asha 
Gopalan Nair, A. P. Mayee, K. V. Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, 
SaurabhAjay Gupta, Nishant Bishnoi, Saurabh Singhal,Anip 
Sachthey, Moh it Paul, Ashok Panigrahi, Ash mi Mohan, Santosh 
Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshi P. Angadi, Gopal Prasad, 
F 
Jayesh Gaurav, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Ruchi Kohli, 
Kaleeswaram Raj, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Resmitha R. 
Chandran, Vinay Garg, Tanmay Agarwal, Uday Singh, Kuldip 
Si
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.