Noting that there was nothing “mala fide” in publishing photographs of the Prime Minister, political leaders and “higher authorities” in government advertisements, the Centre on Tuesday said it was the prerogative of a democratically elected government to decide its expenses and the Supreme Court could not interfere.
Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi told a Bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi that an ulterior motive of “trying to gain political mileage” could not be read into every government advertisement published with the photographs of political leaders. He submitted that any restriction on government advertisements even before their publication would amount to “pre-censorship.”
The court was debating if it should make into law a recommendation by a Supreme Court-appointed high-power committee, led by eminent academic N.R. Madhava Menon, that names and pictures of political parties and their office-bearers should not be mentioned in government advertisements.
The committee, in a report to the court in October 2014, said that such advertisements were instances of self-aggrandisement and misuse of public money. It has framed a series of guidelines to regulate expenditure and contents of government advertisements in order to “keep politics out of ads.”
Prashant Bhushan, counsel of petitioner Common Cause, said such advertisements were harmful instances of patronage of media houses by the government.
‘Every penny audited’ Mr. Rohatgi said such guidelines were unnecessary as a constitutional framework was in place to regulate expenses. “All expenses of the government are provided through the Appropriation Bills passed by Parliament. Every penny spent is audited. There is a constitutional requirement for audit. The Comptroller and Auditor General will check. These guidelines have limited value,” Mr. Rohatgi said.
He submitted that rallies and campaigns run by the government for social causes cost money. “For example, the government advertises its initiatives against swine flu. How much is spent, what is spent, for what it is spent, where it is spent and all is the right of the democratically elected government. The government is answerable to Parliament,” he said.
“What is the problem in using the photo of a Minister, Prime Minister or higher authority whose initiative the social programme is... Is it mala fide to inform the public under Article 19 which Minister started this initiative,” the top law officer asked the court.
The Bench reserved the case for final orders.
