LI Network
Published on: October 3, 2023 at 12:03 IST
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the removal of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, and other ministers’ names and photographs from various government scheme advertisements, including Gruhalakshmi and Gruha Jyothi Schemes.
In its decision, a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit recognized that in a democratic republic like India, governments frequently communicate their policies and programs to the public through advertisements, which are an essential part of this process.
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Umapathi S, argued that such advertisements, which prominently feature the images of political leaders, would place a significant financial burden on the state and might violate legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Common Cause v Union of India case and noted that other countries have established statutory policies to regulate government advertisements to prevent partisan use of public funds. However, it did not find the petitioner’s argument against such advertisements, particularly those featuring ministers’ photographs, compelling.
The Court stated, “Several countries such as Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, etc. have formulated statutory policies for regulating governmental advertisements so that the same does not promote a partisan agenda and misuse of public money for personal or political gains; such policies promote transparency and accountability.”
While the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns about the potential development of a “personality cult” through the use of photographs in government advertisements, it did not find an absolute prohibition against such use in the legal precedents.
The Court emphasized that this does not mean they endorse such practices and cautioned against interpreting legal judgments rigidly, noting that they should be considered contextually.
Rejecting the contention that advertisements depicting photographs of ministers would be unconstitutional due to the cost to the public exchequer in the absence of statutory enablement, the Court stated, “We do not much subscribe to the submission that these advertisements involve huge expenditures and therefore, they should never be permitted. After all, in life, be it of an individual or institutions, nothing comes free.”
The bench also observed that it is not the petitioner’s case that any of the government’s advertisements violate the provisions of various statutes.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition while emphasizing that its decision should not be interpreted as approval for the publication of ministers’ photographs in government advertisements. It expressed hope that better judgment would prevail in this matter.
