Common Cause v. Union of India
Background
Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that governments (Central and State) were misusing public funds on advertisements designed to glorify individual political leaders and functionaries rather than genuinely informing citizens of their rights and entitlements: a practice they said intensified before elections. In an earlier order dated 23 April 2014, the Supreme Court had already held that genuine government advertisements informing the public are permissible but politically motivated ones are not, and had set up a three-member Committee (including a former National Judicial Academy director and a former Lok Sabha Secretary General) to recommend detailed content-regulation guidelines.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court considered the Committee's recommended guidelines and, invoking its special constitutional power under Article 142 to do complete justice, approved and adopted them with some modifications. Most notably, departing from the Committee's recommendation, the Court held that government advertisements should generally not carry photographs of political leaders or government functionaries at all, permitting an exception only for the photographs of the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of India (who may themselves decide), and for commemorating the anniversaries of departed national figures like the father of the nation. The Court directed constitution of a three-member Ombudsman-type body to oversee compliance, declined to order a separate performance audit (finding existing accountability mechanisms adequate), and declined to impose any special pre-election embargo on government advertising. The Court made clear its directions were not meant to be exhaustive, leaving room for the government to fill gaps consistent with constitutional values.
Lesson Learnt
Public funds spent on government communication must serve the public's right to information, not promote individual political personalities: the Supreme Court can and will use its constitutional powers to impose binding content-regulation guidelines (including restrictions on using leaders' photographs) where no legislation yet exists to prevent such misuse.