SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI & N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Common Cause – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2003 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 197 of 2004
Decided On : 23-04-2014
W P (Civil) No. 83 of 2005; W P (Civil) No. 2926 of 2012 (Delhi); AIR 1961 Bom 167 – Distinguished
(b) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Court may not prima facie decide what public purpose is – But Court is bound to interfere if the State action is unreasonable, and contrary to public interest – Government cannot benefit private party at the cost of public exchequer. (Para 17)
(1980) 4 SCC 1; (1991) 1 SCC 212; (1979) 3 SCR 1014; (1980) Supp SCC 559 – Relied upon
(1989) Supp (1) SCC 504 – Referred
(c) Administrative law – Government advertisement – Need to distinguish advertisements that are part of Government messaging and daily business and advertisements that are politically motivated – Committee constituted for suggesting guidelines. (Para 21, 25)
Facts of the case:
These writ petitions are filed in public interest to throw light on the enduring issue of use of publicly funded government advertising campaigns as de facto political advertising canvass which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. These petitions have been brought as a class action by certain registered societies viz., Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the 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 binding guidelines which will prevent the abuse of public funds by such advertising.
The immediate cause of filing these writ petitions in 2003 and 2004 respectively is stated to be the numerous full page advertisements in the print media and repeated advertisements in the electronic media by the Central Government, State Governments and its agencies, instrumentalities including public sector undertakings which project political personalities and proclaim the achievements of particular political governments and parties at the expense of the public exchequer. It is also the assertion of the petitioners that such advertisements become more blatant and assumes alarming proportions just before the announcement of the general elections.
Finding of the Court:
There is need to distinguish advertisements that are part of Government messaging and daily business and advertisements that are politically motivated.
Result: Committee constituted for suggesting guidelines.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI. –
1) These writ petitions are filed in public interest, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, to throw light on the enduring issue of use of publicly funded government advertising campaigns as de facto political advertising canvass which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. With the increasing awareness and emphasis on transparency in the governance of the country, the public senses the need to restrain the misuse of public funds for furthering the political motives. These petitions have been brought as a class action by certain registered societies viz., Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the 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 binding guidelines which will prevent the abuse of public funds by such advertising.
2) The immediate cause of filing these writ petitions in 2003 and 2004 respectively is stated to be the numerous full page advertisements in the print media and repeated advertisements in the electronic media by the Central Government, State Governments and its agencies, instrumentalities including public sector undertakings which project political personalities and proclaim the achievements of particular political governments and parties at the expense of the public exchequer. It is also the assertion of the petitioners that such advertisements become more blatant and assumes alarming proportions just before the announcement of the general elections.
Accordingly, it is the stand of the petitioners that such deliberate misuse of public funds by the Central Government, State Governments, their Departments and instrumentalities of the State is destructive to the rule of law. Further, it allows the parties in power to patronize publications and media organizations affiliated to the parties in power and also to get favourable media coverage by selective dispersal of the advertising bonanza.
3) It is projected that the use of public funds for advertising by public authorities to project particular personalities, parties or governments without any attendant public interest is mala fide and arbitrary and amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also highlighted that use and wastage of public funds in political motivated advertisements designed to project particular personality, party or Government by wasting public money is also in violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 because of diversion of resources by the governments for partisan interests. Such violation, therefore, attracts the remedy under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the stand of the petitioners herein that a writ of mandamus in such a situation, if it is to be effective, needs to be accompanied by guidelines regulating the same and we accede to the stand of the petitioners.
4) On the other hand, Union of India and various States submitted the necessity of advertisement in the print and electronic media for dissemination of information in a democratic setup and further pointed out that since similar issues have already been raised earlier and adjudicated upon by this Court as also some High Courts such as Bombay and Delhi, hence akin grounds should not be entertained in these petitions. With these averments and in the light of the earlier decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan & Anr. vs. U.O.I. & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 83 of 2005] decided on 10.01.2011, the respondents herein prayed for dismissal of both the writ petitions.
5) Heard Ms. Meera Bhatia, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Union of India. We also heard respective counsel for various States.
Discussion:
6) Let us, at the outset, consider the objec
Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagnnath Kinikar
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K
Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of UP
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.