The Supreme Court ban on using pictures of ministers in government advertisements and its observation that only photographs of the President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India should feature in government-sponsored ads in the media are progressive steps that deserve to be welcomed in principle.
In so far as the strict curbs on ‘politically motivated’ ads in the media, issued by the government and leaders at the cost of public funds, are concerned, the move is indeed laudable. But there is no explanation why chief ministers as heads of government in their states have been excluded and the Chief Justice of the apex court is included in the privileged category.
The court order came on the basis of a series of recommendations given by a committee led by noted legal academician NS Madhava Menon. The committee was formed in April 2014 on a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause which had argued that ruling party leaders and ministers were taking undue advantage at public expense.
The committee said even the pictures of the three dignitaries should be used only with their approval. How practical that would be remains to be seen considering that they are perpetually hard-pressed for time.
That the use of pictures of late leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru has been allowed stands to reason. A bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana also asked the central government to constitute a three-member committee to regulate the issue of public advertisements which too is seemingly a wise step.
The Menon panel had recommended a complete ban on publishing photos in the ads. It had further said that no ads should be allowed on the eve of election. The NGOs had highlighted numerous full-page advertisements in newspapers and repeat ads on TV, released by the central and state governments and their agencies, which projected political personalities and proclaimed the achievements of the ruling party at the expense of the public exchequer.
The new policy is still a bit raw and needs to be fine-tuned. While “personal glorification and image-making at public expense are a direct antithesis of democratic functioning,” as the court said, it is vital that dissemination of a government’s genuine achievements not be hidden from public eye.
