Content Regulation / Censorship
Loughran v. Century Newspapers Ltd
In Progress Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that in the absence of any other law or policy, there was a need for the Court to lay down guidelines to check misuse of public funds by the government for political advertising. The NGOs Common Cause and the Centre for Public Interest Litigation sought to restrain the central and state governments from using public funds for political advertising and asked the Supreme Court for guidance on this matter. The Court examined the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DVAP) and reasoned that it dealt only with eligibility and empanelment of newspapers, journals, and other media and their rates of payment, among other matters. The Court also referred to government advertising policies in Australia and Canada and concluded that there was a need for the Court to lay down substantive guidelines before the legislature enacts an appropriate law.
Common Cause filed writ petitions seeking mandamus to restrain the central and state governments from using public funds for political advertising and seeking Supreme Court guidelines on this matter. The Union of India argued that substantive guidelines regulating government advertisements had already been issued by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DVAP), an agency of the Government of India, and thus Supreme Court guidelines were not required.
P. Sathasivam, CJI, delivered the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court of India examined the DVAP Advertisement Policy and concluded that it dealt only with eligibility and empanelment of newspapers, journals, and other media; and their rates of payment; among other matters. The policy stated that the DVAP will not take into account political affiliation or editorial policies of the media in releasing advertisements to them. There was no policy to regulate the content of government advertisements and to prevent misuse of public funds for political advertising.
The Court also referred to government advertising policies in Australia and Canada. It concluded that there is a need for the Court to lay down substantive guidelines before the legislature enacts an appropriate law. It composed a three-member committee to suggest guidelines on this matter to the Court.
The committee submitted its report in October, 2014. It recommended that advertisements should avoid glorification of political personalities, and framed guidelines to regulate expenditures and the content of such advertisements, and prevent arbitrary use of public funds to project particular personalities, parties, or governments without any attendant public interest. A Vaidyanathan, Stop Government’s Wasteful Newspaper Ads: Supreme Court Report, NDTV (Oct. 6, 2014).
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
Although the final decision is still pending, the Court recognized the need to check abuse and misuse of public funds by governments for political advertising that may not be in public interest. Even in the absence of legislation or executive policy on the matter, the Court took this role upon itself to guide policy in a suitable direction.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Indian Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts within the territory of India.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.