Madras High Court Seeks ECI's Response On DMK's Plea Challenging Guidelines To Regulate Political Parties' Advertisements On TV Channels, Cable Networks

Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad adjourned the case to 17^th April 2024 after the Standing Counsel for ECI, Advocate Niranjan Rajagopal informed the court that an appeal against the rejection of the pre-certificate could only be entertained by the Supreme Court and thus the present plea was not maintainable.

The Election Commission of India had issued a commission providing guidelines to regulate the advertisements by political parties on television. As per this instruction, the State Level Certification Committee chaired by the Additional/Joint Chief Electoral Officer was to consider applications for pre-certificate from all registered political parties having headquarters in the State.

DMK, in its plea filed through the organization secretary RS Bharathi, submitted that the party had applied for pre-certificate before the State Level Certification Committee (SLCC) in compliance with the Guidelines but the same was rejected on grounds contained in the Handbook on Media Matters for CEOs and DEOs. The grounds say that any cable operator is prohibited from transmitting advertisements not in conformity with the code and likely to promote enmity, contain aspersion against the integrity of the President and Judiciary, or contain criticism of other parties or their workers.

DMK argued that the rejection order was vague, arbitrary, and prejudicial against DMK as similar advertisements were run by other parties. Though an appeal was preferred before the State Level Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC), the same was also rejected without giving any specific reasons.

On Monday, the ECI objected to the plea and argued that as per the ECI's regulations, the plea could not be heard by the High Court as an appeal was maintainable only before the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Shanmugasundaram, appearing for the petitioner's counsel on record Advocate Manuraj S argued that the ECI could not take away the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Though the ECI placed reliance on an order of the Apex Court in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Gemini TV, in which the court had observed that the aggrieved party could only approach the High Court, Shanmugasundaram informed the court that the order was to be in force only till May 10, 1004.

Following this, Rajagopal sought time to confirm whether the above order was extended from time to time.

Case Title: Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v Election Commission of India

Case No: WP No. 10466 of 2024