Govt Ads With Images Of Political Leaders Frowned Upon But Not Prohibited: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking the removal of the names and photographs of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, and other concerned ministers from various advertisements and sanction orders related to government schemes called Gruhalakshmi and Gruha Jyothi Schemes.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit acknowledged that in a democratic republic like India, governments regularly communicate their policies and programs to the public, and such advertisements are a part of this process.

“Once the candidates are elected to the seat of power, the policies or programmes are evolved at the level of the Government and the same need to be communicated to the public at large so that the benefit thereof can be availed collectively or individually. The accomplishments of policies & programs too need to be informed.”

Advocate Umapathi S for the petitioner had argued that such advertisements, which prominently featured the images of these political figures, would impose a significant financial burden on the state's finances and could be in violation of legal precedents set by the Supreme Court.

AGA Niloufer Akbar appearing for the respondent opposed the plea. 

The bench referred to the Apex court judgement in the case of Common Cause v Union of India 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.

“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.”

It added that much grievance cannot be made against the governmental advertisements. While the court acknowledged the concerns expressed by the petitioner regarding the potential for developing a "personality cult" through the use of photographs in government advertisements, it did not find any absolute prohibition against such use in the legal precedents.

"Broadly speaking, the Court frowned upon the publication of photographs in governmental advertisements, is true. However, no specific direction in the form of magistra dicta is pointed out which constitutes an absolute embargo against the publication of photographs of Chief Minister or other Ministers, in a small margin of the advertisements. A cursory look at the advertisement copies produced as annexures to the Petition do not depict the photographs with the glare & pomp. However, we hasten to add that we are not inclined to approve this also." 

The Court emphasised that this does not mean they endorse such practices. They cautioned that legal judgments should be interpreted contextually, considering the specific circumstances, rather than as rigid mathematical theorems.

Rejecting the contention that advertisements in any form, depicting photographs of ministers would cost the public exchequer and therefore, the same is unconstitutional in the absence of statutory enablement.

“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. There can be no manner of doubt that one or the other Government advertisement coinciding with some event or occasion is published almost everyday.”

It added,

“Publication of photographs of individuals be they State functionaries or workers of the political parties has the tendency of associating that particular individual with the institutional achievements that are highlighted in the advertisement.”

The court also highlighted that there are existing state legislations that regulate advertisements within their jurisdictional limits and criminalize disfigurement of public places. However, the petitioner did not demonstrate any violation of these statutes.

"They do not depict the photographs with the glare & pomp. However, we hasten to add that we are not inclined to approve this also. After all, judgments of the Law Laying Court cannot be construed as Euclid's Theorem. They need to be understood in the backdrop of the fact matrix, from which the ratio is churned out.”

The bench also observed that it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the advertisements undertaken by the Government are an infringement of the provisions of various statutes. 

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition, emphasising that its decision should not be construed as approval for the publication of ministers' photographs in government advertisements. It also expressed hope that better judgment would prevail in this matter. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

Case Title: Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad And State of Karnataka

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20404 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order