Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC asks govt for ad monitor follow-up

SC asks govt for ad monitor follow-up

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Aug 18, 2015   modified Modified on Aug 18, 2015
-The Telegraph

The Supreme Court today told the Centre to respond within four weeks on whether it had set up a panel, as a two-judge bench had ordered, to monitor if its directive on regulating government advertisements was being followed.

The court's order to form such a three-member body of persons - "unimpeachable" in their "neutrality" - had come on May 13, but the government is yet to constitute such a panel.

Hence the notice from the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and N.V. Ramana.


The May 13 directives had followed public interest petitions filed by two NGOs - CPIL and Common Cause - which had sought a restraint on unabashed self-glorification by politicians.

The NGOs said the publicity blitzkrieg became rampant on the eve of elections.

In its directives, the court had then said no government ad - including in the print and electronic media, and banners and hoardings at public places - should have photographs of chief ministers or governors.

It said only the photographs of the President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India (besides those of national figures like the Father of the Nation) could be used in advertisements sponsored by the government in mass media.

The then bench of Justices Gogoi and P.C. Ghose had also turned down a plea for appointing an ombudsman for monitoring government advertisements, as recommended by a three-member apex court panel.

"Insofar as the recommendation with regard to the appointment of (an) ombudsman is concerned, we are of the view that for ironing out the creases that are bound to show from time to time in the implementation of the present directions and to oversee such implementation, the government should constitute a three-member body consisting of persons with unimpeachable neutrality and impartiality and who have excelled in their respective fields," the bench had said.

"We could have but we refrain from naming the specific persons and leave the said exercise to be performed by the Union government."

The directives had infuriated the political class. Bengal and Tamil Nadu later moved the apex court for modifying its directive to the extent that chief ministers - head of their respective governments at the state level - are exempt from the embargo on the ground of parity with the Prime Minister.

The appeals by the two states are still pending before the court.

Today, however, the court confined its notice to the Centre on the issue of setting up the three-member monitoring panel, as the earlier bench had directed on May 13.

Justices Gogoi and N.V. Ramana refrained from issuing any notice on contempt applications filed by the CPIL, represented by counsel Meera Bhatia, and Common Cause, represented by Prashant Bhushan, against the governments of Delhi and Tamil Nadu.

In their applications, the NGOs said these two governments had continued to release ads with photographs of their chief ministers despite the embargo the court had imposed.

The Telegraph, 18 August, 2015, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150818/jsp/nation/story_37780.jsp#.VdKfurKqqko


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close