COMMON CAUSEversusUNION OF INDIA

                     [2014] 5 S.C.R. 543


                      COMMON CAUSE                                A
                               v.
                       UNION OF INDIA
             (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2003)

                       APRIL 23, 2014
                                                                  B
       [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND
                  N.V. RAMANA , JJ.]

     Administrative Law:
                                                                  c
        Advertisement policy of Government of India - Judicial
  review of - Advertisement by Government using public funds
  - Writ petition for laying down guidelines - Held: DA VP
  guidelines, which are available in the public domain, only deal
  with eligibility and empanelment of newspapers/journals or 0
  other media, their rates of payment, and such like matters -
  There is no policy or guideline to regulate the content of
  Government advertisements and to exclude possibility of any
  ma/a fide use br misuse of public funds on advertisem'ents
  in order to gain political mileage by political establishment - E
  Although, prima facie, it is not jurisdiction of Supreme Court
, to examine what constitutes as "public purpose", the Court is
  duty bound to interfere whenever Government acts in a
  manner, which is unreasonable and contrary to public interest
  - Writ petitions challenge Government advertisements of
  political nature at the cost of public exchequer on the ground F
  that they ar.e in violation of Arts. 14 and 21 of the Coostitution
  - Since existing DA VP po/icy/guidelines do not govern the
  issues raised in instant writ petitions and do not lay down any
  criteria for advertisements to qualify for "public purpose" as
  opposed to partisan ends and political mileage, there is a G
  need for substantive guidelines to be issued by Courl until
  legislature enacts a law in this regard - Committee constituted
  to suggest guidelines and submit the same to the Court -
                              543                                 H
    544      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A   Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 and 21 - Government
    of India Advertisement Policy of 2007.

         The instant writ petitions were filed in public interest,
    seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the
    Union of India and all the State Governments from using
8
    public funds for advertising in a manner so as to project
    the personalities, parties or particular governments and
    for laying down b;nding guidelines in order to prevent the
    abuse of public Hmds by such advertising.
c        Primarily, objection against admitting the writ
    petitions was that there existed substantive guidelines
    regulating the Government advertisements issued by the
    DAVP and thus the task of the Supreme Court would be
    rendered infructuous.
D
    "     Adjourning the matter, the Court

         HELD: 1.1. It is seen fr:om the Advertisement Policy
    of 2007 formulated by the Ministry of Information and
    Broadcasting, DAVP, that the primary objective of the
E   Government is to secure the wi~est possible coverage of.
    the intended content or message through newspapers
    and journals of current affairs as well as Science, Art,
    Literature, Sports, Films, Cultural Affairs, etc. The Policy
    further states that in releasing advertisements to
F   newspapers/journals, DAVP does not take into account
    the political affiliation or editorial policies of newspapers/
    journals. The ..Policy dated 02.10.2007 supersedes all
    earlier orders and the same is the New Advertisement
    Policy of the Government of India. A perusal of the said
G   policy shows that all the norms as mentioned in various
    clauses are to be adhered to in overall media strategy of
    the Ministries and Departments to ensure maximum
    coverage at optimum cost. Thus, it is vividly clear that the
    DAVP guidelines, which are available in the public
H   domain, only deal with the eligibility and empanelment of
            COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF lNDIA ,                  545

1
    the newspapers/journals or other media, th~ir rates of           A
    payment, and such like matters. Besides, it only specifies
    that in releasing advertisement to newspapers/journals,
    the DAVP would not take into account the political
    affiliation or editorial policies of newspapers/journals.
    [para 11-12] [552-F-G; 553-A, H; 554-A-C]                        B

         1.2. It is evident that there is no policy or guideline ·
    to regulate the content of Government advertisements
    and to exclude the possibility of any ma/a· fide use or
    misuse of public funds on advertisements in order to
    gain political mileage by the political establishment. [para C
    12] [554-C-D]

        Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of UP
    1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 690 = (1989) Supp (1) sec 504 -
    referred to.                                                     D

        ivlanzoor Ali Khan & Anr. vs. U. 0.1. & Ors. Writ Petition
    (Civil) No. 83 of 2005 decided by Supreme Court on
    10.01.2011; and Umesh Mohan Sethi vs. Union of India &
    Anr. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2926 of 2012 decided by E
    Supreme Court on 12.12.201'2 - held inapplicab1e.

         1.3. The issues raised in the instant writ petitions are
    not pursuant to violation of any specific rule or law rather
    a question ·at public importance has been raised as to
    whether the State, which is duty bound to allocate its            F
    resou,rces for the maximum public good, c~n cavalierly
    spend huge sums of public funds in order to derive
    political mileage. [para 13] [554-F-G] ·

         Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar vs. Balkrishna Jagnnath           G
    Kinikar and Ors. AIR 1961 Born 167 - Distinguished

        1.4. Although, prima facie, it is not the jurisdiction of
    this Court to examine what constitutes as "public
    purpose", it is duty bound to interfere whenever the
                                                                     .H
    546     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014} 5 S.C.R. .


A Gove.rnment acts in a mariner, which is unreasonable and
  contrary to public interest. In succinct, the Government
  cannot act in a manner, which would benefit a private
  party at the cost of the State; such an action would be
  both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The
B writ petitions challenge the Government advertisements
  of political nature at the cost of the public exchequer on
  the ground· that they are in violation of Arts. 14 and 21 of
  the Constitution. [para 17] [556-E-G]

      Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of J&K 1980 (3)
C SCR 1338 = (1980) 4 SCC 1; Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State
  of UP 1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 625 = (1991) 1 sec 212;
  Ramana Dayaram Sheffy vs. The International Airport·
  Authority of India (1979) 3 SCR 1014; Co/. A.S. Sangwan vs.
  Union of India (1980) Supp SCC 559 - referred to.
D
         1.5. Since the primary cause of government
 . advertisement is to use public funds to inform the'pubUc
   of their.rights, obligations and entitlements as. well as to
   explain Government policies, programs, services and
                                                            •
E initiatives, however, when these requisites are not
   fulfilled in a Government advertisement then the whole
   purpose would be frustrated. [para 21] [558-F-G]

       1.6. In the circumstances, conceding that the existing
  OAVP policy/guidelines do not govern the issues raised
F in the writ petitions and do not lay down any criteria for
  the. advertisements to qualify for "public purpose"' as
  opposed to partisan ends and political mileage, there is
  a need for substantive guidelines to be issued by this
  '3ourt until the legislature enacts a law in this regard. The
G petitioners through their written submiss.ions have
  proposed guidelines in this regard, basically adopting the
  proposed guidelines verbatim from other jurisdiction viz.,
  Australia. However, it will not be appropriate for this
  Court to adopt the guidelines of other country without
H. ,.,
        COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA.                 54 7


 application of mind and appreciation of situation in our      A
 country. [para 24] [560-F-H; 561-A]

      1.8. Keeping in mind that the subject matter for which
 guidelines are to be framed is sensational and significant,
 it would be proper to constitute a Committee consisting B
 of three members to undertake the task of suggesting
 guidelines to this Court after an intricate study of all the
 best practices in public advertisements in different
 jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Committee is constituted ..
 The Committee shall suggest the guidelines and submit C
 the same before this Court preferably within a period of
 three months. [para 25] [561-A-C]
                      Case Law Reference: ·
   Writ Petition (Civil) No. 83 of
                                                               D
   2005
   decided by Supreme Court held inapplicable para 4
   on.10.01.2011
   Writ Petition (Civil) No.
                                                               E
   2926 of 2012
   decided by Supreme Court held inapplicable para 7
   on 12.12.2012
   AIR 1961 Born 167                 distinguished para 7
                                                               F
   1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 690           referred to   para 8
   1980 (3) SCR 1338                 referred to   para 15
   1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 625           referred to   para 16
                                                               G
   (1979) 3 SCR 1014                 referred to   para 16
   (1980) Supp sec 559               referred to   para 16
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
                          -     -
                                  : Under.Article
                                      -· -
                                                  32 of the
· Constitution of India.                                       H.
    548       SUPREME COURT _REPORT$              [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A         Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2003

                                  WITH

    W.P.(C) No. 197 of 2004.

B         A Mariarputham AG, K. Radhakrishnan, Suryanarayana
  Singh; Saurabh Ajay GupJ~. Krishn~ Sarma, S.S. Shamshery,
  AAG, Meera Bhatia, Rishi. Kesh, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Suyash
  Singh, Prashant Bhushan, Ramesh K. Mishra, Vijay Prakash,
  Manju Jena, D.S. Mahra Anjali Chauhan, S. Nagarajan, Avisal .
c Saxena, B.V. Balaram Das, Pragati Neekhra, Kuldip Singh;
  Navnit Kumar (for Corporate Law Group),, Sand~ep .Singh,
  Amit Sharma, Ruchi Kohli, Hemantika Wahi, Preeti Bhardwaj,
  K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kr, Singh, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas,
  Ashok Kumar Singh, Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar, Anil
D Shrivastava, G.N. Reddy, Debojit, M. Bala Shivudu, Sidhartha,
  Reddy, Aruna Mathur, Yusuf, Ashok S. Pillai, Arputham, Aruna
  & Co., Avijit Bhattacharjee, Bina Madhavan, C.D. Singh for the
  appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
          P.SATHASIVAM, cj1. 1. These writ petitions are filed in
   public interest, under Article 32 of.the Constitution of India, to
   throw light on the enduring issue of use of publicly funded
   government advertising campaigns as de facto political
F advertising canvass which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of
   the Constitution. With the increasing awareness and emphasis
 · on transparency in the governance of th'e country, the public
   senses the need to restrain the misuse of public funds for
   furthering the political motives. These petitions have been
G brought as a class action by certain registered societies viz.,
   Common Cause and Centre for Public Interest Litigation
   seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the Union
   of India and all the State Governments from using public funds
   for advertising in a manner so as to project the personalities,
H parties or particular governments and for laying down binding
          COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                         549
               [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
guidelines which will prevent the abuse of public funds by such          'A
advertising.

      2. The immediate cause of filing these writ petitions in
 2003 and 2004 respectively is stated to be the numerous full
·page advertisements in the print media a·nd repeated
                                                                         B
 advertisements in the electronic. media by the Central
 Government, State Governments and its agencies,
 instrumentalities including public sector undertakings which
 project political personalities and proclaim the achievement$
 of particular political governments and parties at the expense
 of the public excheqller. It is also the assertion of the petitioners   C
 that such advertisements become more blatant and assumes
 alarming proportions just before the announcement of the
 general elections. Accordingly, it is the stand of the petitioners
 tHat such deliberate misuse of public funds by the Central
 Government, State ·Governments, their Departments and                   D
 instrumentalities of the State is destructive to the rule of law.
 Further, it allows the parties in power to patronize publications
 and media organizations affiliated to the parties in power and
 al~o to get favourable media coverage by selective dispersal
 of the advertising bonanza.                                             E

     3. It is. projected that the use of public funds for advertising
by public authorities to project particular personalities, parties
or governments without any attendant public interest is ma/a
fide and arbitrary and amounts to violation of Article 14 of the ·F
Constitution of India. It is also highlighted that use and wastage
of public funds in political motivated advertisements designed
to project particular personality, party or Government by wasting
public money is also in violation of the fundamental rights under
Article 21 because of diversion of resources by the G
governments for partisan interesls. Such violation, therefore,
attracts the remedy under Article 32 for the enforcement of
fundamental rights of the citizens. It is the stand of the petitioners
herein that a writ of mandamus in such a situation, if it is to be
effective, needs to be accompanied by guidelines regulating H
    550       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A the same and we accede to the stand of the petitioners.
        4. On the other hand, Union of India and various States
  submitted the necessity of advertisement in the print and
  electronic media for dissemination of information in a
B democratic setup and further pointed out that si!lce similar
  issues have already been raised earlier and adjudicated upo_n
  by this Court as also some High Courts such as Bombay and
  Delhi, hence akin grounds should not be entertained in ~hese
  petitions. With these averments and in the light of the earlier
  decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan & Anr. vs. U.0.1. &
C Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 83 of 2005] decided on
  10.01.2011, the respondents herein prayed for dismissal of
  both the writ petitions.

       5. Heard Ms. Meera Bhatia, Mr. Prashant Bhushan,
D learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan,
  learned senior counsel for the respondent-Union of India. We
  also heard respective counsel for various States.
    Discussion:

E        6. Let us, at the outset, consider the objection raised by
    the respondents regarding the maintainability of the petitions·
    primarily before we would deliberate on the contentions on the
    merits.

F       7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of
  India, it has been stated that the issues raised in the present
  petitions are no longer res integra but are in fact res judicata
  in the light of earlier decision of this Court in Manzoor Ali Khan
  (supra) and other matters decided by the High Court of Delhi
G in Umesh Mohan $efhi vs. Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition
  (Civil) No. 2926 of 2012] decided on 12.12.2012 ~nd the
  Bombay High Court in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar vs.
  Balkrishna Jagnnath Kinikar and Ors. AIR 1961 Born 167.

          8. In response to the objection raised, learned counsel for
H
         COMMON CAUSE v. UNION QF INDIA                         551
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.] .

 the petitioners submitted that the principle of constructive res      A
judicata cannot be made applicable in each and every public
 interest litigation and relied on the judgment of this Court in
,Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of UP
 (1989) Supp (1.) SCC 504, wherein it was ..held th'at:-
                                                                       B
     "16 .... We may not be taken to have said that for public
   · interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the
     same time it has to be remembered that every technicality
     in the procedural law is not available as a defence when
    .a matter of grave public importance is for consideration
     before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a final       C
     order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to
     entertain the plea of res judicata ... "

   . ··Thus, in the light of the above, learned counsel for the
p~titioners submitted that the decision rendered in Manzoor Ali        D
Khan (supra) should not prevent this Court from deciding the
issues raised in the present petitions.

      9. Further, it is the stand of the petitioners that a petition
filed in public interest cannot be held to be an adversarial           E
system of adjudication and the petitioners in their case merely
brought it to the notice of the Court as to how and in what
manner the public interest is being jeopardized by arbitrary and
capricious action of the authorities and, therefore, the principle
of constructive res judicata cannot be made applicable in each
and every public interest litigation, irrespective of the nature of    F
litigation it&elf and its impact on the society and the larger
public interest, w~ich is being served. Placing rel\ance on the
reasoning rendered in the aforesaid verdict the objecfion raised
herein· stands overruled.
                                                                       G
     10. In the light of this, now let us ~xamine the. submissions
of the petitioners on merits. The decision of·this Court in
Manzoor Ali.'Khah (supra) was based on two premises, firstly,
that guideline governing the same subject matter already exists
as framed by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity       H
    552      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A (DAVP) as well as Depar;tment of Information in each of the
  States and secondly, that the matter is squarely covered against
  the petitioners in view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court
  ii') the case of Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar (supra). It is the
  stand of the petitioners that the DAVP guidelines relied upon
B by this Court in the Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) and by the
  respondents in its counter affidavit in the present case are
  irrelevant for the consideration of the issues raised in the
  present writ petitions. Further, it was submitted that the decision
  in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar (supra) is. clearly
c distinguishable with the facts and issues raised in the present
  public interest litigation. We shall analyse both these grounds
  in detail in the _ensuing paragraphs.

        11. Primarily, objection against admitting these writ
  petitions was that there exists substantive guidelines regulating
D the Governments' advertisements issued by the DAVP and thus
  the task of this Court will be rendered infructuous. Mr. K.
  Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the Union of India
  reiterated the stand taken by the Government in their counter-
  affidavit filed in the year 2003 as well as in 2013 and brought
E to our notice the New Advertisement. Policy [with effect from
  02.10.2007] formulated by the Ministry of Information and
  Broadcasting, DAVP, which is the nodal agency of the
  Government of India for advertisement by various Ministries and
  organizations of Government of India including public sector
F undertakings and autonomous bodies. It is seen from the
  Advertisement Policy of 2007 that the primary objective of the
  Government is to secure the widest possible coverage of the
  intended content or message through newspapers and journals
  of current affairs as well as Science, Art, Literature, Sports,
G Films, Cultural Affairs, etc. The Policy further states that in
  releasing advertisements to newspapers/journals, DAVP does
   not take into account the political affiliation or editorial policies
   of newspapers/journals. However, it states that DAVP would
  avoid releasing advertisements to newspapers/journals, which
H incite or tend to incite communal passion, preach violence,
        COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                      553
             [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
offend the sovereignty and integrity of India or socially accepted A
norms of public decency and behaviour. The Policy dated
02.10.2007 supersedes all earlier orders and the same is the
New Advertisement Policy of t~e Government of India. The said
Policy contains 27 clauses. A -reading pf these clauses shows
that the Government advertisements are not intended to give 8
financial assistance to the newspapers/journals. DAVP
maintains a list of newspapers/journals approved for release of -
advertisements by empanelling acceptable newspapers/
journals. It further reinforces that due care is taken to empanel
newspapers~ournals having readership from different sections        c
ofthe society in different parts of the country. The Policy also
makes it clear that all Central Ministries/Departments/attached
and Subordinate offices/field offices shall route their
advertisements, including display advertisements, through
DAVP. It also maintains a Panel Advisory Committee (PAC)
for considering applications of ne.wspapers/journals for being D
empanelled for publishing Government advertisements. This
Committee shall be headed by the Director General, DAVP and
shall include the Additional Birector General (Media &
Communication)/Deputy Director General (Media &
Communication) in .the Press Information Bureau (PIB}, Press E
Registrar/Deputy Press Registrar and Director/Deputy
Secretary/Under Secretary in the Ministry of Information and
Broadcc\sting dealing with Print Media. The Committee will also
have one representative each from the Association of big,
medium and small newspapers. The recommendations of the F
PAC as accepted by the DG,, DAVP regarding emp-anelment
of a newspaper shall be final. It also shows that all empanelled
newspai:iets/publications will be asked to enter into a rate
contract, which will be valid for a period of three years. It further
provides that the rate structure for payment against G
advertisements released by DAVP will be worked out as per
the recommendations of the Rat_e Structure Committee. The
rates depend on certified circulation of a newspaper. ·

     12. A perusal of various clauses in the Advertisement Policy   H
    554       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A of the Government of India dated 02.10.2007 as elaborated in
  the aforesaid paragraph shows that all the norms as mentioned
  in various clauses are to be adhered to in overall media
  strategy of the Ministries and Departments to ensure maximum
  coverage at optimum cost. Thus, it is vividly clear that the DAVP
B guidelines, which are available in the public domain, only deal
  with the eligibility and empanelrrient of the newspapers/journals
  or other media, their rates of payment, and such like matters.
  Besides, it only specifies that in releasing advertisement to
  newspapers/journals, the DAVP would not take into account the
C political affiliation or editorial policies of newspapers/journals.
  Hence, it is evident that there is no policy or guideline to
  regulate the content of Government advertisements and to
  exclude the possibility of any ma/a fide use or misuse of public
  funds on advertisements in order to gain political mileage by
  the political establishment.
0
        13. As far as the second objection with regard to
  applicability of the decision in LaxmaQ Moreshwar Moharkar
  (supra) is concerned, we have analyzed the same and are of
  the cogent view that the said decision of the Bombay High
E Court is cl~arly distinguishable from the facts and iss~es raised
  in the present petitions. The aforesaid case pertains to
  applicability or non-applicability of a particular rule viz., Rule 189
  of the Law Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules and Rules for
  the Conduct of the Legal Affairs of the Government wherea~
F the issues raised in these writ petitions are not pursuant to
  violation of any specific rule or law rather a question of public
  importance has been raised as to whether the State, which is
  duty bound to allocate its resources for the maximum public
  good,    can cavalierly spend huge sums of public funds in order.
G to derive political mileage. Thus, the ratio laid down in Laxman
  Moreshwar Moharkar (supra) is not relevant for consideration
  of issues raised in these writ petitions.

       14. Learned senior counsel for the respondent - UOI also
    made reference to the decision in Umesh Mohan Sethi (supra)
H
          COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                     555
               [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
rendered on 12.12.2012 by the Delhi High Court which                A
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 Government purports to spend money for a
purpose which it characterizes as a public purpose though in
point of fact it is not a public purpose, the proper place to       B
criticize the action of the Governmerft would be the legislature
or the Appropriation Committee and Courts are not the forum
in which the Government's action could be sought to be
criticized-or restrained. Besides, the Delhi High Court relied
on the decision of Manzoor Ali Khan (supra) rendered by this        c
Court and dismissed the petition as misconceived.

     15. Learned counsel for the petitioners responded to this
contention by asserting that any government activity has to
satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest and while
                                                                    D
dealing with public funds and property, public interest is of
paramount consideration. In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs.
State of J&K (1980) 4 SCC 1, this Court has held as under:-
    "12 .... Any action taken by the Government with a view to
    giving effect to any one or more of the Directive Principles    E
    would ordinarily, subject to any constitutional or legal
    inhibitions or other over-riding considerations, qualify for
    being regarded as reasonable, while an action which is
    inconsistent with or runs counter to a Directive Principle
    would incur the reproach of being unreasonable."                F
    ***                          ***               ***

     "14. Where any Governmental action fails to satisfy the test
     of reasonableness and public interest discussed above
   · and is found to be wanting in the quality of reasonableness    G
     or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be
     liable to be struck down as invalid. It must follow as a
     necessary corollary from this proposition that the
     Government cannot act in a manner which would
     benefit a private party at the cost, of the State; such        H
    556       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A         an action would be both unreasonable and contrary
          to public interest. .... "

       16. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of UP (1991) 1 SCC
  212, this Court unequivocally rejected the argument based on
8 the theory of absolute discretion of the administrative authorities
  and immunity of their action from judicial review and observed:

          "It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Article
          of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of
          Governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the
C         government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the
          test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional."

         Similar reasoning was rendered in Ramana Dayaram
  . Sheffy vs. The International Airport Authority of India (1979)
o 3 SCR 1014 and in Co/. A.S. Sangwan vs. Union of India
    (1980) Supp SCC 559. Hence, it was submitted that judicial
    review of Government policies is permissible if it does not
    satisfy the test of reasonableness and against the public
    interest.                ·
E       .17. Although, as asserted by the respond~nts herein that
  it is not the prima facie jurisdiction of this Court to examine what .
  constitutes as "public purpose" or not however, as per judicial ·
  precedents in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy (supra) and other
  case laws as stated above, this Court is duty bound to interfere
F whenever the Government acts in a manner, which is
  unreasonable and cqntrary to public interest. In succinct, the
  Government cannot act in a manner, which would benefit a
  private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be
  both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The present
G writ petitions challenge the Government advertisements of
  political nature at the cost of the public exchequer on the ground
  that they are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
  We shall examine and scrutinize the situation as.portrayed by
  the petitioners as to whether then~ is need for specific
H guidelines to be issued by this Court to regulate the same.
        COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                      557
             [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
      18. The petitioners further submitted that advertisement A
campaigns are undertaken ostensibly to advertise certain public
works and almost all these advertisements contain photographs
of the Ministers and important political personalities of the
Government, which clearly show that these advertisement are
framed for the purpose of highlighting the achievements of the B
incumbent government and aim to create an impression that
those particular political personalities were directly responsible
for providing public benefits to the people. In succinct, the use
of public office and public funds for personal, political or
partisan purposes is clearly malafide, illegal and not permissible C
under the Constitution. Thus, it is the stand of the petitioners
that expenditure on such advertisements is blatant misuse of .
public funds by the Central Government, State Governll'lents,
their departments and instrumentalities of the State as it fosters
wastage of scarce funds of the exchequer in pro"moting private , D
partisan interests as against public interest that is destructive
of the rule of law.

      19. Conversely, the Government of India, in their counter-·
affidavit claimed that 60% of the advertisements released by
the Directorate of Advertising and Visual publicity (DAVP) on · E
behalf of various Ministries/Departments/Public Sector
Undertakings (PSUs) of the Central Government relate to
classified or display/classified category such as UPSC/SSC
or recruitment, tender and public notices, etc. T.he respondents
asserted that government advertisements sometime carry F
messages from national leaders, Ministers and dignitaries
accompanied with their photographs. However, it is their stand
that the purpose of such advertisements is not to give personal
publicity to the leaders or to the political parties they belong to
rather the objective is to let the people know and have authentic G
information about the progress of the programmes/
performance of the government they elected and form informed
opinions, which is one of the fundamental rights of the citizens
in our democracy as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The
composition of advertisements issued by DAVP during the
                                                                    H
    558       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03 in respect of various
  Ministries/Departments is given in the form of annexure to the
  counter-affidavit. It is the stand of the Government that the
  objective of displaying the advertisements issued by DAVP on
  behalf of the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India
8 is to create awareness among the people about various
  policies, programmes and achievements of the Government
  and advertising is an integr~I part of dissemination of
  information, which is essential in a democracy.

          20. The contentions raised by the respondents are based
C on clear principle that is bound to be accepted on the face of
    it. The stand that Government advertising is a mode.for the
  · Government to disseminate to the members of the public, of
    information about a government program, policy or initiative, or
    about any public health or safety or other matter(s), that is funded
D by or on behalf of a Government agency, is an outright fact and
    is a must in our democratic setup. This Court, in its
    Constitutional wisdom, understands that it is only through such
    advertisements that the Government communicates with its
    citizens which plays an important role in efficiently and effectively
E. achieving the goals of public policy.

       21. At the same time, the stand of the petitioners in these
  writ petitions is also not entirely misconceived. Since the
  primary cause of government advertisement is to use public .
F funds to inform the public of their rights, obligations, and
  entitlements as well as to explain Government policies,
  programs, services and initiatives, however, when these
  requisites are not fulfilled in a Government advertisement than
  the whole purpose would be frustrated. The petitioners through
  annexures have brought to the notice of this Court numerous
G Government advertisements released by the Central
  Govo/nment, State Governments, their departments and
  instrumentalities of the State which fail to disseminate any
  information to the public of their rights and entitlements in the
  Government policies rather only glorifies the accomplishments
H
       · COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                       559
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]

of a particular Government. The petitioners herein have               A
disputed only such advertisements, which they plead to be
wastage of public exchequer for political mileage. While the
boundary lines can blur, we need to distinguish between the
advertisements that are part of Government messaging and
daily business and advertisements that are politically motivated.     B
It is yet further pleaded that even the Election Commission of
India though had expressed concern but could not do anything
owing to lack of jurisdiction in the matter.

      22. Although this issue of concern may be new to India but      C
not for other countries. Governments around the world spend
huge amount of money yearly for advertisements in their local
media and most of the countries have faced similar fate of
situation as portrayed in these petitions. The solution to this
crisis was arrived at by framing the Government advertising
guidelines, which set out the policies and processes that apply       D
to Government advertisement. Few countries which adopted
Government advertising policies are as under:-

Australia
                                                                      E
     Australia adopted new policy to regulate Government
advertisement in response to nearly a decade of abuse, during
which public advertising was corruptly used to promote a
partisan agenda. The focus of policy recommendations is to
depoliticize public advertising, prevent co,nflict of interest, and
devolve power in such a way that no person or group can easily
                                                                      F
exploit public advertising funds for individual or political gains.

Canada

     Canada also has strict conflict of interest guidelines, which    G
promote transparency, accountability and separation of
authority to discourage abuse of public advertising funds for
individual, finaneial or political gains.

     Similar policies exist in almost all developed countries to
                                                                      H
                                   /

    560       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [20141 5 S.C.R.

A check the abuse of Government advertisements for private
    ~nd~.                                       ·

        23. There are five principles laid down in Guidelines On
    Information and Advertising Campaigns by Australian
8
    Government Departments and Agencies, which will be
    applicable to all Government advertising campaigns.

          Principle 1: Campaigns   should be relevant             to
                      government responsibilities.

c         Principle 2: Campaign materials should be presented in
                      an objective, fair, and accessitile manner and
                      be designed to meet the· objectives of the
                      campaign.

          Principle 3: Campaign materials should be objective and.
D                      not directed at promotin~arty political·
                      interests.

          Principle 4: Campaigns should be justified and
                      undertaken in an efficient, effective and
E                     relevant manner.

          Principle 5: Campaigns must comply with legal
                      requirements and procurement policies and
                      procedures.
F       24. In these circumstances, conceding that the existing
  DAVP policy/guidelines do not govern the issues raised in
  these writ petitions and do not lay down any criteria for the
  advertisements to qualify for "public purpose" as opposed to
  partisan ends and political mileage, there is a need for
G substantive guidelines to be issued by this Court until. the
  legislature enacts a law in this regard. The petitioners through
  their written submissions have proposed guidelines in this
  regard, however, on going through the same, we recognized
  that the petitioners herein have basically adopted the proposed ·
H
         COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA                       561
              [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
guidelines verbatim from other jurisdiction viz., Australia.          A
Accordingly, we do _not think that it will be appropriate for this
Court to adopt the guidelines of other country without application
                                      .
of mind and appreciation of situation in our country .

      25. Keeping in mihd that the time available to this Court       B
is limited and the subject matter for which guidelines are to be
framed is sensational and significant, we deem it proper to
constitute a Committee consisting of three members to
undertake the task' of suggesting guidelines to this .Court after
an intricate study of all the best practices in public
advertisements in different jurisdictions and to submit the same      C
before this Court preferably within a period of three months. The
Committee will consist of the following members:

      (1)    Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon,
                                                                      D
             former Director, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal

      (2)    Mr. T.K. Viswanathan,

             former Secretary General, Lok Sabha
                                                                      E
      (3)    Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate

    In order to coordinate and render assistance to the
Committee, we appoint the Secretary, Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting as Member Secretary.
                                                                      F
      26. The matter be posted for further direction before this
Court on the expiry of three months from today along with the
suggestions as may be submitt~d by the Committee pursuant
to this judgment.
                                                                      G
Rajendra ·Prasad                                  Matter adjourned.