The use of government advertising as a tool for political propaganda, especially during election time, has been a key concern in many democracies. Given the role of the state in India as a controller of the fortunes of many publications dependent on advertising revenue, it is inevitable that in the name of disseminating information about government performance and programmes, many a regime makes use of official advertising to drive home politically loaded messages, focus on personalities and give the impression that huge allocations of budgetary resources and framing of policies and schemes are solely because of particular leaders. The lack of guidelines relating to the content of government advertisements works against the public interest in two ways: firstly, public funds could be misused by releasing information and announcements in a politically partisan way so that the gains of publicity rebound to the ruling party or a reigning leader; secondly, the generous use of advertisements as an incentive to select media houses in return for favourable coverage. While in normal circumstances ruling parties tend to use advertising as a site for self-glorification, in the run-up to elections it could be a form of electioneering that is free of cost. The Supreme Court, which appointed a three-member committee last April to frame appropriate guidelines, will soon consider the panel’s report. As an institution that has been keeping a close watch on the purity of the election process, the court is making a serious effort to ensure that public funds are not used for partisan ends.
In its short but meaningful report, the panel, comprising jurist N.R. Madhava Menon, former Lok Sabha Secretary-General T.K. Viswanathan, and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, has recommended that advertisement material be objective and not directed at promoting the ruling party’s interests. The recommended guidelines bar lapses in political neutrality and the projection of a positive impression of the party in power or negative impression of those critical of the government. The panel has counselled against mentioning the party in power by name and attacks against the views of the opposition. It seeks to prohibit party symbols, logos or flags, or any links to websites of political parties and politicians. The panel disfavours use of government advertising aimed at favourable coverage for the party or person in power. If these guidelines are accepted by the Supreme Court and laid down as law, they could serve as effective curbs on the misuse of the government’s advertisement machinery. That day will mark one more step in preventing the misuse of public office for partisan ends, as well as in protecting the purity of the electoral process.
