REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.

13 OF 2003 Common Cause Versus Union of India WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 197 OF 200 .... Respondent(s) .... Petitioner (s)

JUDGMENT
P.S!"#!$%&!'( CJI. 1) These writ petitions are filed in public interest, under

rticle !" of the Constitution of India, to throw li#ht on the endurin# issue of use of publicl$ funded #o%ernment ad%ertisin# campai#ns as de facto political ad%ertisin# can%ass which is %iolati%e of rticles 1& and "1 of the

Constitution. 'ith the increasin# awareness and emphasis on transparenc$ in the #o%ernance of the countr$, the public senses the need to restrain the misuse of public funds for furtherin# the political moti%es. These petitions ha%e been

1
Page 1

brou#ht as a class action b$ certain re#istered societies %i(., Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest )iti#ation see*in# a writ in the nature of mandamus restrainin# the Union of India and all the +tate ,o%ernments from usin# public funds for ad%ertisin# in a manner so as to pro-ect the personalities, parties or particular #o%ernments and for la$in# down bindin# #uidelines which will pre%ent the abuse of public funds b$ such ad%ertisin#. ") The immediate cause of filin# these writ petitions in

"..! and "..& respecti%el$ is stated to be the numerous full pa#e ad%ertisements in the print media and repeated ad%ertisements in the electronic media b$ the Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments and its a#encies,

instrumentalities includin# public sector underta*in#s which pro-ect political personalities and proclaim the achie%ements of particular political #o%ernments and parties at the e/pense of the public e/che0uer. It is also the assertion of the petitioners that such ad%ertisements become more blatant and assumes alarmin# proportions -ust before the announcement of the #eneral elections. ccordin#l$, it is the
2
Page 2

stand of the petitioners that such deliberate misuse of public funds b$ the Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments, their 1epartments and instrumentalities of the +tate is destructi%e to the rule of law. 2urther, it allows the parties in power to patroni(e publications and media or#ani(ations affiliated to the parties in power and also to #et fa%ourable media co%era#e b$ selecti%e dispersal of the ad%ertisin# bonan(a. !) It is pro-ected that the use of public funds for b$ public authorities to pro-ect particular

ad%ertisin#

personalities, parties or #o%ernments without an$ attendant public interest is mala fide and arbitrar$ and amounts to %iolation of rticle 1& of the Constitution of India. It is also

hi#hli#hted that use and wasta#e of public funds in political moti%ated ad%ertisements desi#ned to pro-ect particular personalit$, part$ or ,o%ernment b$ wastin# public mone$ is also in %iolation of the fundamental ri#hts under rticle "1

because of di%ersion of resources b$ the #o%ernments for partisan interests. +uch %iolation, therefore, attracts the remed$ under rticle !" for the enforcement of fundamental

ri#hts of the citi(ens. It is the stand of the petitioners herein
3
Page 3

that a writ of mandamus in such a situation, if it is to be effecti%e, needs to be accompanied b$ #uidelines re#ulatin# the same and we accede to the stand of the petitioners. &) 3n the other hand, Union of India and %arious +tates

submitted the necessit$ of ad%ertisement in the print and electronic media for dissemination of information in a democratic setup and further pointed out that since similar issues ha%e alread$ been raised earlier and ad-udicated upon b$ this Court as also some 4i#h Courts such as 5omba$ and 1elhi, hence a*in #rounds should not be entertained in these petitions. 'ith these a%erments and in the li#ht of the earlier decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan & Anr. %s. U.O.I. & Ors. 6'rit Petition (Ci%il) 7o. 8! of "..9: decided on 1...1.".11, the respondents herein pra$ed for dismissal of both the writ petitions. 9) 4eard ;s. ;eera 5hatia, ;r. Prashant 5hushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and ;r. <. Radha*rishnan, learned senior counsel for the respondent=Union of India. heard respecti%e counsel for %arious +tates. 'e also

4
Page 4

D%$)*$$%+,>) the )et us, at the outset, consider the ob-ection raised b$ respondents re#ardin# the maintainabilit$ of the

petitions primaril$ before we would deliberate on the contentions on the merits. ?) In the counter affida%it filed on behalf of the Union of

India, it has been stated that the issues raised in the present petitions are no lon#er res integra but are in fact res judicata in the li#ht of earlier decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) and other matters decided b$ the 4i#h Court of 1elhi in Umesh Mohan Sethi %s. Union of India & Anr. 6'rit Petition (Ci%il) 7o. "@"> of ".1": decided on 1".1".".1" and the 5omba$ 4i#h Court in Laxman Moreshwar Mahur ar %s. !al rishna "a#nnath Kini ar and Ors. 1@>1 5om 1>?. 8) In response to the ob-ection raised, learned counsel for IR

the petitioners submitted that the principle of constructi%e res judicata cannot be made applicable in each and e%er$

5
Page 5

public interest liti#ation and relied on the -ud#ment of this Court in $ural Liti#ation and %ntitlement Kendra %s. State of U& (1@8@) +upp (1) +CC 9.&, wherein it was held thatA=
B1>. ...'e ma$ not be ta*en to ha%e said that for public interest liti#ations, procedural laws do not appl$. t the same time it has to be remembered that e%er$ technicalit$ in the procedural law is not a%ailable as a defence when a matter of #ra%e public importance is for consideration before the Court. C%en if it is said that there was a final order, in a dispute of this t$pe it would be difficult to entertain the plea of res -udicataDE

Thus, in the li#ht of the abo%e, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision rendered in Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) should not pre%ent this Court from decidin# the issues raised in the present petitions. @) 2urther, it is the stand of the petitioners that a petition

filed in public interest cannot be held to be an ad%ersarial s$stem of ad-udication and the petitioners in their case merel$ brou#ht it to the notice of the Court as to how and in what manner the public interest is bein# -eopardi(ed b$ arbitrar$ and capricious action of the authorities and, therefore, the principle of constructi%e res judicata cannot be

6
Page 6

made applicable in each and e%er$ public interest liti#ation, irrespecti%e of the nature of liti#ation itself and its impact on the societ$ and the lar#er public interest, which is bein# ser%ed. aforesaid o%erruled. 1.) In the li#ht of this, now let us e/amine the submissions of the petitioners on merits. The decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) was based on two premises, firstl$, that #uideline #o%ernin# the same sub-ect matter alread$ e/ists as framed b$ the 1irectorate of d%ertisin# Placin# reliance on the reasonin# rendered in the %erdict the ob-ection raised herein stands

and Visual Publicit$ (1 VP) as well as 1epartment of Information in each of the +tates and secondl$, that the matter is s0uarel$ co%ered a#ainst the petitioners in %iew of the -ud#ment of the 5omba$ 4i#h Court in the case of Laxman Moreshwar Mahur ar (supra). It is the stand of the petitioners that the 1 VP #uidelines relied upon b$ this Court in the Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) and b$ the respondents in its counter affida%it in the present case are irrele%ant for the consideration of the issues raised in the
7
Page 7

present writ petitions.

2urther, it was submitted that the

decision in Laxman Moreshwar Mahur ar (supra) is clearl$ distin#uishable with the facts and issues raised in the present public interest liti#ation. 'e shall anal$se both

these #rounds in detail in the ensuin# para#raphs. 11) Primaril$, ob-ection there a#ainst admittin# these writ

petitions was that

e/ists substanti%e

#uidelines

re#ulatin# the ,o%ernmentsF ad%ertisements issued b$ the 1 VP and thus the tas* of this Court will be rendered infructuous. ;r. <. Radha*rishnan, learned senior counsel for the Union of India reiterated the stand ta*en b$ the ,o%ernment in their counter=affida%it filed in the $ear "..! as well as in ".1! and brou#ht to our notice the 7ew d%ertisement Polic$ 6with effect from .".1.."..?:

formulated b$ the ;inistr$ of Information and 5roadcastin#, 1 VP, which is the nodal a#enc$ of the ,o%ernment of India for ad%ertisement b$ %arious ;inistries and or#ani(ations of ,o%ernment of India includin# public sector underta*in#s and autonomous bodies. It is seen from the d%ertisement

Polic$ of "..? that the primar$ ob-ecti%e of the ,o%ernment
8
Page 8

is to secure the widest possible co%era#e of the intended content or messa#e throu#h newspapers and -ournals of current affairs as well as +cience, 2ilms, Cultural rt, )iterature, +ports,

ffairs, etc. The Polic$ further states that in

releasin# ad%ertisements to newspapersG-ournals, 1 VP does not ta*e into account the political affiliation or editorial policies of newspapersG-ournals. 1 VP would a%oid 4owe%er, it states that ad%ertisements to

releasin#

newspapersG-ournals, which incite or tend to incite communal passion, preach %iolence, offend the so%erei#nt$ and

inte#rit$ of India or sociall$ accepted norms of public decenc$ and beha%iour. The Polic$ dated .".1.."..?

supersedes all earlier orders and the same is the 7ew d%ertisement Polic$ of the ,o%ernment of India. The said Polic$ contains "? clauses. readin# of these clauses shows

that the ,o%ernment ad%ertisements are not intended to #i%e financial assistance to the newspapersG-ournals. 1 VP maintains a list of newspapersG-ournals appro%ed for release of ad%ertisements b$ empanellin# acceptable

newspapersG-ournals.

It further reinforces that due care is

9
Page 9

ta*en to empanel newspapersG-ournals ha%in# readership from different sections of the societ$ in different parts of the countr$. The Polic$ also ma*es it clear that all Central and +ubordinate

;inistriesG1epartmentsGattached

officesGfield offices shall route their ad%ertisements, includin# displa$ ad%ertisements, throu#h 1 VP. It also maintains a Panel d%isor$ Committee (P C) for considerin# applications

of newspapersG-ournals for bein# empanelled for publishin# ,o%ernment ad%ertisements. This Committee shall be

headed b$ the 1irector ,eneral, 1 VP and shall include the dditional 1irector ,eneral 1irector (;edia (;edia H H

Communication)G1eput$

,eneral

Communication) in the Press Information 5ureau (PI5), Press Re#istrarG1eput$ Press Re#istrar and 1irectorG1eput$

+ecretar$GUnder +ecretar$ in the ;inistr$ of Information and 5roadcastin# dealin# with Print ;edia. The Committee will also ha%e one representati%e each from the ssociation of

bi#, medium and small newspapers. The recommendations of the P C as accepted b$ the 1,, 1 VP re#ardin# empanelment of a newspaper shall be final. It also shows

10
Page 10

that all empanelled newspapersGpublications will be as*ed to enter into a rate contract, which will be %alid for a period of three $ears. It further pro%ides that the rate structure for

pa$ment a#ainst ad%ertisements released b$ 1 VP will be wor*ed out as per the recommendations of the Rate +tructure Committee. The rates depend on certified

circulation of a newspaper. 1") perusal of %arious clauses in the d%ertisement Polic$

of the ,o%ernment of India dated .".1.."..? as elaborated in the aforesaid para#raph shows that all the norms as mentioned in %arious clauses are to be adhered to in o%erall media strate#$ of the ;inistries and 1epartments to ensure ma/imum co%era#e at optimum cost. Thus, it is %i%idl$ clear that the 1 VP #uidelines, which are a%ailable in the public domain, onl$ deal with the eli#ibilit$ and empanelment of the newspapersG-ournals or other media, their rates of pa$ment, and such li*e matters. 5esides, it onl$ specifies that in releasin# ad%ertisement to newspapersG-ournals, the 1 VP would not ta*e into account the political affiliation or editorial policies of newspapersG-ournals. 4ence, it is e%ident that
11
Page 11

there is no polic$ or #uideline to re#ulate the content of ,o%ernment ad%ertisements and to e/clude the possibilit$ of an$ mala fide use or misuse of public funds on

ad%ertisements in order to #ain political milea#e b$ the political establishment. 1!) s far as of the the second decision ob-ection in with re#ard to

applicabilit$

Laxman

Moreshwar

Mohar ar (supra) is concerned, we ha%e anal$(ed the same and are of the co#ent %iew that the said decision of the 5omba$ 4i#h Court is clearl$ distin#uishable from the facts and issues raised in the present petitions. The aforesaid case pertains to applicabilit$ or non=applicabilit$ of a particular rule %i(., Rule 18@ of the )aw 3fficers (Conditions of +er%ice) Rules and Rules for the Conduct of the )e#al ffairs of the

,o%ernment whereas the issues raised in these writ petitions are not pursuant to %iolation of an$ specific rule or law rather a 0uestion of public importance has been raised as to whether the +tate, which is dut$ bound to allocate its resources for the ma/imum public #ood, can ca%alierl$ spend hu#e sums of public funds in order to deri%e political
12
Page 12

milea#e. Thus, the ratio laid down in Laxman Moreshwar Mohar ar (supra) is not rele%ant for consideration of issues raised in these writ petitions. 1&) )earned senior counsel for the respondent = U3I also made reference to the decision in Umesh Mohan Sethi (supra) rendered on 1".1".".1" b$ the 1elhi 4i#h Court which pertained to similar issues as raised in these writ petitions to substantiate their stand. In Umesh Mohan Sethi (supra)' it was held that if the ,o%ernment purports to spend mone$ for a purpose which it characteri(es as a public purpose thou#h in point of fact it is not a public purpose, the proper place to critici(e the action of the ,o%ernment would be the le#islature or the ppropriation

Committee and Courts are not the forum in which the ,o%ernmentFs action could be sou#ht to be critici(ed or restrained. 5esides, the 1elhi 4i#h Court relied on the decision of Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) rendered b$ this Court and dismissed the petition as misconcei%ed.

13
Page 13

19) )earned counsel for the petitioners responded to this contention b$ assertin# that an$ #o%ernment acti%it$ has to satisf$ the test of reasonableness and public interest and while dealin# with public funds and propert$, public interest is of paramount consideration. In Kasturi Lal La shmi $edd( %s. State of "&K (1@8.) & +CC 1, this Court has held as underA=
B1". D n$ action ta*en b$ the ,o%ernment with a %iew to #i%in# effect to an$ one or more of the 1irecti%e Principles would ordinaril$, sub-ect to an$ constitutional or le#al inhibitions or other o%er=ridin# considerations, 0ualif$ for bein# re#arded as reasonable, while an action which is inconsistent with or runs counter to a 1irecti%e Principle would incur the reproach of bein# unreasonable.E III III III

B1&. 'here an$ ,o%ernmental action fails to satisf$ the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed abo%e and is found to be wantin# in the 0ualit$ of reasonableness or lac*in# in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struc* down as in%alid. I" '*$" .+//+0 !$ ! ,1)1$$!23 )+2+//!23 .2+' "#%$ 42+4+$%"%+, "#!" "#1 G+&12,'1," )!,,+" !)" %, ! '!,,12 0#%)# 0+*/5 61,1.%" ! 42%&!"1 4!2"3 !" "#1 )+$"( +. "#1 S"!"17 $*)# !, !)"%+, 0+*/5 61 6+"# *,21!$+,!6/1 !,5 )+,"2!23 "+ 4*6/%) %,"121$" D..E

1>) In Shrile ha )id(arthi %s. State of U& (1@@1) 1 +CC "1", this Court une0ui%ocall$ re-ected the ar#ument based on the theor$ of absolute discretion of the administrati%e

14
Page 14

authorities and immunit$ of their action from -udicial re%iew and obser%edA
BIt can no lon#er be doubted at this point of time that rticle of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of ,o%ernmental polic$ and if the polic$ or an$ action of the #o%ernment, e%en in contractual matters, fails to satisf$ the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.E

+imilar reasonin# was rendered in $amana *a(aram Shett( %s. +he International Airport Authorit( of India (1@?@) ! +CR 1.1& and in ,ol. A.S. San#wan %s. Union of India (1@8.) +upp +CC 99@. 4ence, it was submitted that -udicial re%iew of ,o%ernment policies is permissible if it does not satisf$ the test of reasonableness and a#ainst the public interest. 1?) lthou#h, as asserted b$ the respondents herein that it

is not the prima facie -urisdiction of this Court to e/amine what constitutes as Bpublic purposeE or not howe%er, as per -udicial precedents in Kasturi Lal La shmi $edd( (supra) and other case laws as stated abo%e, this Court is dut$ bound to interfere whene%er the ,o%ernment acts in a manner, which is unreasonable and contrar$ to public interest. In

15
Page 15

succinct, the ,o%ernment cannot act in a manner, which would benefit a pri%ate part$ at the cost of the +tateJ such an action would be both unreasonable and contrar$ to public interest. The present writ petitions challen#e the

,o%ernment ad%ertisements of political nature at the cost of the public e/che0uer on the #round that the$ are in %iolation of rticles 1& and "1 of the Constitution. 'e shall e/amine

and scrutini(e the situation as portra$ed b$ the petitioners as to whether there is need for specific #uidelines to be issued b$ this Court to re#ulate the same. 18) The petitioners further submitted that ad%ertisement campai#ns are underta*en ostensibl$ to ad%ertise certain public wor*s and almost all these ad%ertisements contain photo#raphs of the ;inisters and important political

personalities of the ,o%ernment, which clearl$ show that these ad%ertisement are framed for the purpose of

hi#hli#htin# the achie%ements of the incumbent #o%ernment and aim to create an impression that those particular political personalities were directl$ responsible for pro%idin# public benefits to the people. In succinct, the use of public
16
Page 16

office and public funds for personal, political or partisan purposes is clearl$ malafide, ille#al and not permissible under the Constitution. Thus, it is the stand of the petitioners that e/penditure on such ad%ertisements is blatant misuse of public funds b$ the Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments, their departments and instrumentalities of the +tate as it fosters wasta#e of scarce funds of the e/che0uer in promotin# pri%ate partisan interests as a#ainst public interest that is destructi%e of the rule of law. 1@) Con%ersel$, the ,o%ernment of India, in their counter= affida%it claimed that >.K of the ad%ertisements released b$ the 1irectorate of behalf of d%ertisin# and Visual Publicit$ (1 VP) on ;inistriesG1epartmentsGPublic +ector

%arious

Underta*in#s (P+Us) of the Central ,o%ernment relate to classified or displa$Gclassified cate#or$ such as UP+CG++C or recruitment, tender and public notices, etc. The respondents asserted that #o%ernment ad%ertisements sometime carr$ messa#es from national leaders, ;inisters and di#nitaries accompanied with their photo#raphs. 4owe%er, it is their

stand that the purpose of such ad%ertisements is not to #i%e
17
Page 17

personal publicit$ to the leaders or to the political parties the$ belon# to rather the ob-ecti%e is to let the people *now and ha%e authentic information about the pro#ress of the pro#rammesGperformance of the #o%ernment the$ elected and form informed opinions, which is one of the fundamental ri#hts of the citi(ens in our democrac$ as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The composition of ad%ertisements issued b$ 1 VP durin# the $ears "...=.1, "..1=." and ".."=.! in respect of %arious ;inistriesG1epartments is #i%en in the form of anne/ure to the counter=affida%it. It is the

stand of the ,o%ernment that the ob-ecti%e of displa$in# the ad%ertisements issued b$ 1 VP on behalf of the

;inistriesG1epartments of the ,o%ernment of India is to create awareness amon# the people about %arious policies, pro#rammes and achie%ements of the ,o%ernment and ad%ertisin# is an inte#ral part of dissemination of

information, which is essential in a democrac$. ".) The contentions raised b$ the respondents are based on clear principle that is bound to be accepted on the face of it. The stand that ,o%ernment ad%ertisin# is a mode for the
18
Page 18

,o%ernment to disseminate to the members of the public, of information about a #o%ernment pro#ram, polic$ or initiati%e, or about an$ public health or safet$ or other matter(s), that is funded b$ or on behalf of a ,o%ernment a#enc$, is an outri#ht fact and is a must in our democratic setup. This Court, in its Constitutional wisdom, understands that it is onl$ throu#h such ad%ertisements that the ,o%ernment

communicates with its citi(ens which pla$s an important role in efficientl$ and effecti%el$ achie%in# the #oals of public polic$. "1) t the same time, the stand of the petitioners in these

writ petitions is also not entirel$ misconcei%ed. +ince the primar$ cause of #o%ernment ad%ertisement is to use public funds to inform the public of their ri#hts, obli#ations, and entitlements as well as to e/plain ,o%ernment policies, pro#rams, ser%ices and initiati%es, howe%er, when these re0uisites are not fulfilled in a ,o%ernment ad%ertisement than the whole purpose would be frustrated. The petitioners throu#h anne/ures ha%e brou#ht to the notice of this Court numerous ,o%ernment ad%ertisements released b$ the
19
Page 19

Central ,o%ernment, +tate ,o%ernments, their departments and instrumentalities of the +tate which fail to disseminate an$ information to the public of their ri#hts and entitlements in the ,o%ernment policies rather onl$ #lorifies the

accomplishments of a particular ,o%ernment. The petitioners herein ha%e disputed onl$ such ad%ertisements, which the$ plead to be wasta#e of public e/che0uer for political milea#e. 'hile the boundar$ lines can blur, we need to distin#uish between the ad%ertisements that are part of ,o%ernment messa#in# and dail$ business and ad%ertisements that are politicall$ moti%ated. It is $et further pleaded that e%en the Clection Commission of India thou#h had e/pressed concern but could not do an$thin# owin# to lac* of -urisdiction in the matter. "") lthou#h this issue of concern ma$ be new to India but

not for other countries. ,o%ernments around the world spend hu#e amount of mone$ $earl$ for ad%ertisements in their local media and most of the countries ha%e faced similar fate of situation as portra$ed in these petitions. The solution to this crisis was arri%ed at b$ framin# the ,o%ernment
20
Page 20

ad%ertisin# #uidelines, which set out the policies and processes that appl$ to ,o%ernment ad%ertisement. 2ew countries which adopted ,o%ernment ad%ertisin# policies are as underA= Australia ustralia adopted new polic$ to re#ulate ,o%ernment ad%ertisement in response to nearl$ a decade of abuse, durin# which public ad%ertisin# was corruptl$ used to promote a partisan is a#enda. to The focus public of polic$

recommendations

depolitici(e

ad%ertisin#,

pre%ent conflict of interest, and de%ol%e power in such a wa$ that no person or #roup can easil$ e/ploit public ad%ertisin# funds for indi%idual or political #ains. ,anada Canada also has strict conflict of interest #uidelines, which promote transparenc$, accountabilit$ and separation of authorit$ to discoura#e abuse of public ad%ertisin# funds for indi%idual, financial or political #ains.

21
Page 21

+imilar policies e/ist in almost all de%eloped countries to chec* the abuse of ,o%ernment ad%ertisements for pri%ate benefits. "!) There are fi%e principles laid down in -uidelines On Information and Ad.ertisin# ,ampai#ns /( Australian -o.ernment *epartments and A#en0ies' which will be applicable to all ,o%ernment ad%ertisin# campai#ns. Principle 1: Campai#ns should be rele%ant to #o%ernment responsibilities. Principle 2: Campai#n materials should be presented in an ob-ecti%e, fair, and accessible manner and be desi#ned campai#n. Principle 3: Campai#n materials should be ob-ecti%e and not directed at promotin# part$ political interests. Principle 4: Campai#ns should be -ustified and underta*en in an efficient, effecti%e and rele%ant manner. Principle 5: Campai#ns must compl$ with le#al re0uirements and procurement policies and procedures. "&) In these circumstances, concedin# that the e/istin# 1 VP polic$G#uidelines do not #o%ern the issues raised in these writ petitions and do not la$ down an$ criteria for the to meet the ob-ecti%es of the

22
Page 22

ad%ertisements to 0ualif$ for Bpublic purposeE as opposed to partisan ends and political milea#e, there is a need for substanti%e #uidelines to be issued b$ this Court until the le#islature enacts a law in this re#ard. The petitioners throu#h their written submissions ha%e proposed #uidelines in this re#ard, howe%er, on #oin# throu#h the same, we reco#ni(ed that the petitioners herein ha%e basicall$ adopted the proposed #uidelines %erbatim from other -urisdiction %i(., ustralia. ccordin#l$, we do not thin* that it will be

appropriate for this Court to adopt the #uidelines of other countr$ without application of mind and appreciation of situation in our countr$. "9) <eepin# in mind that the time a%ailable to this Court is limited and the sub-ect matter for which #uidelines are to be framed is sensational and si#nificant, we deem it proper to constitute a Committee consistin# of three members to underta*e the tas* of su##estin# #uidelines to this Court after an intricate stud$ of all the best practices in public ad%ertisements in different -urisdictions and to submit the same before this Court preferabl$ within a period of three
23
Page 23

months. membersA 1) ") !)

The

Committee

will

consist

of

the

followin#

Prof. (1r.) 7.R. ;adha%a ;enon, former 1irector, 7ational Ludicial cadem$, 5hopal ;r. T.<. Viswanathan, former +ecretar$ ,eneral, )o* +abha ;r. Ran-it <umar, +enior d%ocate

In order to coordinate and render assistance to the Committee, we appoint the +ecretar$, ;inistr$ of Information and 5roadcastin# as ;ember +ecretar$. ">) The matter be posted for further direction before this Court on the e/pir$ of three months from toda$ alon# with the su##estions as ma$ be submitted b$ the Committee pursuant to this -ud#ment. .DD.DDDDDDDDDDCLI. (P. SATHASIVAM) DDDD.DDDDDDDDDDL. (RANJAN GOGOI) DDDD.DDDDDDDDDDL. (N.V. RAMANA) 7C' 1C)4IJ PRI) "!, ".1&.

24
Page 24