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

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

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
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


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
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

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$

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

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
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


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
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


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


It further reinforces that due care is

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


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) 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

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
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




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
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.

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

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

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
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


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
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
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
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
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$




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.

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

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
Page 23

months. membersA 1) ") !)








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&.

Page 24