Christmas Advertisements By Delhi Govt: High Court Disposes Plea Seeking Action For Allegedly Wasting Public Money

The Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh noted that a representation in this regard is already pending consideration before the Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising (CCRGA), constituted at the directions of the Supreme Court.

Thus, it ordered,

"A Committee is already constituted by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner has already preferred a representation before the said committee and the same is pending consideration. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition."

Liberty is however reserved with the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in case of any grievance following disposal of the representation.

The public interest litigation was filed by Advocate Kumar Piyush Pushkar, appearing in person.

He alleged that the Delhi Government published advertisements, bearing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's photographs, wishing Christmas to the citizens, across the length and breadth of the country, that too in almost all the mainstream newspapers including the local newspapers.

However, it is alleged that this exercise was done merely to expand the political base of the Aam Aadmi Party and the advertisements were not even remotely connected to public interest.

"When every other day, one or other groups are protesting to get their monthly salary, when municipal corporations and their employees protest to demand their funds, such misuse of public money is completely superfluous," it was contended.

The Petitioner further alleged that these advertisements were issued in utter disregard of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 13 of 2003 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 194 of 2004.

He highlighted that the object of the Supreme Court guidelines is to prevent "arbitrary use of public funds" for advertising by public authorities to "project particular personalities, parties or governments", "without any attendant public interest".

Further, as per the guidelines, he submitted, advertisement by the Government can be published only for the purpose to inform citizens about their rights and responsibilities, about government policies, or about dangers or risks to public health, safety or the environment.

"In the present case, advertisement has not served any purpose mentioned above," the plea stated.

Pushkar added that advertisement campaigns by government must be justified and undertaken in an efficient and cost-effective manner. However, he alleged that the same was not done in this case.

The Petitioner had therefore prayed that to restrain the Delhi government from using public funds on advertisements which are primarily intended to project individual functionaries, and to order an audit to check the objectivity, efficiency and cost effectiveness of the impugned advertisements.

An order was sought directing the Delhi government to collect and deposit the public money wasted on such advertisement in the state exchequer by fixing the accountability against the guilty officials.

Further, it was prayed that the CCRGA be directed to take cognizance of the alleged violations and initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent the Delhi government in a time bound manner.

Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for the Delhi government on advance notice, made three-fold submissions:

1. The Petitioner has approached the court with unclean hands inasmuch as he failed to disclose in the petition that he is a TV panellist for the Bhartiya Janta Party. "This is a politically motivated petition," he alleged.

2. The Petitioner has explored the alternative remedy by filing a complaint with the CCRGA and the matter is pending consideration.

3. The impugned advertisements of Delhi government are not violative of Supreme Court judgment as these are not political advertisements, they not propagate any political party but merely extend a greeting to the citizens, reflecting a secular government.

Case Title: Kumar Piyush Pushkar v. GNCTD & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 16