Apex court shouldn’t interfere in advt content
The Supreme Court's ruling regarding advertisements the Government issues, is misplaced, unnecessary, and can even appear to be a case of judicial overreach. The apex court does not have the authority to decide on the content of such advertisements — this is the prerogative of the executive and the legislature. On Wednesday, the apex court banned Government advertisements from carrying photographs of political leaders and state functionaries. It has only made an exception for photographs of the President, the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court's order is based on the recommendations of an expert committee, which it had set up last year. This again is problematic. Note that the court did not even accept the expert's committee's report in full, making at least four changes, which underlines the entirely arbitrary nature of the guideline-forming process. Also, the judiciary's job is not to make laws or frame rules, but only to interpret and enforce laws that have been made by Parliament and ensure that such laws are in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution of India. However, in this case, the court has emerged as the law-maker and the law-keeper.
The Supreme Court has given three reasons for seeking to regulate Government advertisements in this manner: First, photographs of Government leaders and officials in advertisements supposedly encourage “personality cults” that are the “antithesis to democracy”; second, such advertisements are a colossal waste of public funds; and third, Government advertisements have become a source of political patronage. All three arguments have merit, but only partially. In the first case, the Supreme Court cannot ignore the fact that leaders who feature in Government advertisements are involved in the schemes and programmes they are promoting. It is only fair that the public should know the kind of work that is being done by the elected representatives.
Also, even if we buy the “personality cult” argument, it is odd that the apex court plans to end the problem by removing several leaders from the advertisements and allowing only three individuals to make their presence felt. If anything, this directive fuels the growth of “personality cults”. In this context, one may also ask: Why does the Chief Justice of India get a special pass to feature in Government advertisementsIJ He or she is not even an elected representative! In the second case, it is, again, not the court's job to decide what constitutes wastage of public funds. For that, there is the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Parliament and, eventually, the public.
Finally, while the court is right is observing that Government advertisements are sometimes used to secure partisan political interests, this is surely not the way to end the menace. On the flip side, the judgement has the potential to drastically reduce the number of Government advertisements, which will have a domino effect. Small media houses, which depend heavily on Government advertisements, will take a huge hit. Another big flaw of the Supreme Court directive is that it gives a raw deal to State leaders. If the Prime Minister and the President are being allowed space, Chief Ministers and Governors cannot be kept out of the advertisements.