Bombay High Court: The present petition was instituted by the Editors’ Forum, stating that the Government Resolutions (‘GRs’) dated 01-05-2001, 13-08-2008, 31-08-2009, and 19-10-2015 issued by the General Administration Department of the State of Maharashtra regarding several issues concerning advertisements to be released to the print and electronic media were being flouted with impunity.
The Division Bench of M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ., noted that in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 1 (‘Common Cause Case’), one of the concerns which was addressed was the misuse of publicly funded advertising campaigns through print and electronic media by the Government and the Supreme Court issued several directions addressing the concerns expressed based upon the recommendations of a High-Power Committee that was constituted for the said purpose. Thus, this Court directed the State Government to constitute such a committee as expeditiously as possible.
Background
In the present case, petition stated instances of the breaches and there were complaints about violations of the rotation policy in distribution, the release of advertisements to non-approved newspapers and channels, the release of advertisements without involving the Director General of Information and Public Relations (DGIPR) regarding empanelment, non-approved creative agencies, etc. The breaches were not only by the State but also, by agencies such as Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC), City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), etc.
The petition sought the Constitution of a Commission to enquire about the illegalities committed by DGIPR and other government agencies and local authorities and sought departmental action and criminal prosecution against all those involved in breaching the GRs and frittering away public funds.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that 4.3.1 of the GR dated 20-12-2018 provided that the Committee as referred to by the Additional Government Pleader was constituted to include and delete newspapers’ names from the approved list and thus opined that the said Committee had no nexus with the committee as contemplated by the Supreme Court in Common Cause Case (supra).
The Court noted that in Common Cause Case (supra), the issue was about the utilization of public funds for issuing advertisements by the Government and its instrumentalities through print and electronic media and one of the concerns which was addressed was the misuse of publicly funded advertising campaigns through print and electronic media by the Government and its instrumentalities for furthering political motives of the political party in power by projecting political personalities and their political parties and proclaiming their achievements, as being malafide, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in Common Cause Case (supra) issued several directions addressing the concerns expressed based upon the recommendations of a High-Power Committee that was constituted for the said purpose and one of the recommendations was that an Ombudsman should be appointed to ensure that there was no abuse or misuse of public funds for issuing advertisements for extraneous purposes.
The Court stated that if the committee as directed by the Supreme Court were constituted, then this Court would have had no difficulties directing it to look into the instances of violations alleged in the present petition. The Court stated that there was no justification for not having a committee in the State of Maharashtra.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Common Cause Case (supra) and Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Kewal Kumar Sharma, (2017) 16 SCC 715 (‘Centre for Public Interest Litigation Case’), issued directions for the constitution of a three-member body consisting of persons “with unimpeachable neutrality and impartiality and who have excelled in their respective fields”. Thus, this Court directed the State Government to constitute a three-member body as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 14-12-2024.
The Court stated that once a three-member body consisting of persons with unimpeachable neutrality and impartiality and who had excelled in their respective fields was constituted, then it could consider referring the instances of violations to this committee. The Court stated that the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, should personally ensure that such a three-member body was constituted.
The Court stated that Article 144 of the Constitution provided that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in the aid of the Supreme Court and thus, the State of Maharashtra was dutybound to constitute this three-member body as expeditiously as possible.
The Court directed that the GRs dated 20-12-2018 and 11-10-2024, issued by the State of Maharashtra itself, should be complied with and the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, must ensure that the State of Maharashtra releases no advertisements violating the directions and guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Common Cause Case (supra).
The matter would next be listed on 16-12-2024.
[Editors’ Forum v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3478, decided on 18-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S. B. Talekar a/w Madhavi Ayyappan, Chagan Thakare, and Neha Lalsare for Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Abhay Patki, Addl. G. P. for Respondents1 to 5, 7 to 11 and 14; Heena Shaikh i/b. M. V. Kini for Respondent 6-BEST; Dhruti Kapadia a/w Anuja Tirmali for Respondent 12-BMC; B. B. Sharma for Respondent 16-CIDCO; Prashant Chawan, Senior Counsel a/w Poonam Sheth for Respondent 17-MIDC.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
