Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13 OF 2003

Common Cause                .... Petitioner (s)

Versus

Union of India                                       .... Respondent(s)       

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 197 OF 2004

J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) These writ  petitions are filed in public interest, under  

Article 32 of the Constitution of India, to throw light on the  

enduring  issue  of  use  of  publicly  funded  government  

advertising  campaigns  as  de  facto political  advertising  

canvass  which  is  violative  of  Articles  14  and  21  of  the  

Constitution. With the increasing awareness and emphasis on  

transparency in  the governance of the country,  the public  

senses the need to restrain the misuse of public funds for  

furthering the political  motives. These petitions have been  

1

Page 2

brought as a class action by certain registered societies viz.,  

Common  Cause  and  Centre  for  Public  Interest  Litigation  

seeking a  writ  in the nature of  mandamus  restraining the  

Union  of  India  and  all  the  State  Governments  from using  

public funds for advertising in a manner so as to project the  

personalities,  parties  or  particular  governments  and  for  

laying down binding guidelines which will prevent the abuse  

of public funds by such advertising.    

2) The  immediate  cause  of  filing  these  writ  petitions  in  

2003 and 2004 respectively is stated to be the numerous full  

page  advertisements  in  the  print  media  and  repeated  

advertisements  in  the  electronic  media  by  the  Central  

Government,  State  Governments  and  its  agencies,  

instrumentalities including public sector undertakings which  

project political personalities and proclaim the achievements  

of  particular  political  governments  and  parties  at  the  

expense of the public exchequer.  It is also the assertion of  

the  petitioners  that  such  advertisements  become  more  

blatant  and  assumes  alarming  proportions  just  before  the  

announcement of the general elections.  Accordingly, it is the  

2

Page 3

stand of the petitioners that such deliberate misuse of public  

funds by the Central Government, State Governments, their  

Departments and instrumentalities of the State is destructive  

to the rule of law.  Further, it allows the parties in power to  

patronize publications and media organizations affiliated to  

the  parties  in  power  and  also  to  get  favourable  media  

coverage by selective dispersal of the advertising bonanza.

3) It  is  projected  that  the  use  of  public  funds  for  

advertising  by  public  authorities  to  project  particular  

personalities, parties or governments without any attendant  

public  interest  is  mala  fide and  arbitrary  and  amounts  to  

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  It is also  

highlighted that use and wastage of public funds in political  

motivated  advertisements  designed  to  project  particular  

personality, party or Government by wasting public money is  

also in violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21  

because of diversion of resources by the governments  for  

partisan  interests.  Such  violation,  therefore,  attracts  the  

remedy under Article 32 for the enforcement of fundamental  

rights of the citizens.  It is the stand of the petitioners herein  

3

Page 4

that a writ  of  mandamus in such a situation, if it  is to be  

effective, needs to be accompanied by guidelines regulating  

the same and we accede to the stand of the petitioners.  

4) On the other hand, Union of India and various States  

submitted the necessity of advertisement  in  the print  and  

electronic  media  for  dissemination  of  information  in  a  

democratic setup and further pointed out that since similar  

issues have already been raised earlier and adjudicated upon  

by this Court as also some High Courts such as Bombay and  

Delhi, hence akin grounds should not be entertained in these  

petitions. With these averments and in the light of the earlier  

decision  of  this  Court  in  Manzoor  Ali  Khan &  Anr.  vs.  

U.O.I. & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 83 of 2005] decided  

on 10.01.2011, the respondents herein prayed for dismissal  

of both the writ petitions.

5) Heard Ms. Meera Bhatia, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned  

counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned  

senior counsel for the respondent-Union of India.   We also  

heard respective counsel for various States.

4

Page 5

Discussion:

6) Let us, at the outset, consider the objection raised by  

the  respondents  regarding  the  maintainability  of  the  

petitions  primarily  before  we  would  deliberate  on  the  

contentions on the merits.   

7) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of  

India, it has been stated that the issues raised in the present  

petitions are no longer res integra but are in fact res judicata  

in the light of earlier decision of this Court in  Manzoor Ali  

Khan (supra) and other matters decided by the High Court  

of Delhi in Umesh Mohan Sethi vs. Union of India & Anr.  

[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2926 of 2012] decided on 12.12.2012  

and  the  Bombay  High  Court  in  Laxman  Moreshwar  

Mahurkar vs. Balkrishna Jagnnath Kinikar and Ors. AIR  

1961 Bom 167.  

8) In response to the objection raised, learned counsel for  

the petitioners submitted that the principle of constructive  

res judicata cannot be made applicable in each and every  

5

Page 6

public interest litigation and relied on the judgment of this  

Court  in  Rural  Litigation  and  Entitlement  Kendra vs.  

State of UP (1989) Supp (1) SCC 504, wherein it was held  

that:-

“16. ...We may not be taken to have said that for public  interest  litigations,  procedural  laws do not  apply.  At the  same time it has to be remembered that every technicality  in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a  matter  of  grave  public  importance  is  for  consideration  before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a final  order,  in  a  dispute  of  this  type  it  would  be  difficult  to  entertain the plea of res judicata…”

Thus,  in  the  light  of  the  above,  learned  counsel  for  the  

petitioners submitted that the decision rendered in Manzoor  

Ali  Khan  (supra)  should  not  prevent  this  Court  from  

deciding the issues raised in the present petitions.  

9) Further, it is the stand of the petitioners that a petition  

filed in public interest cannot be held to be an adversarial  

system  of  adjudication  and  the  petitioners  in  their  case  

merely brought it to the notice of the Court as to how and in  

what  manner  the  public  interest  is  being  jeopardized  by  

arbitrary  and  capricious  action  of  the  authorities  and,  

therefore, the principle of constructive res judicata cannot be  

6

Page 7

made applicable in each and every public interest litigation,  

irrespective of the nature of litigation itself and its impact on  

the  society  and  the  larger  public  interest,  which  is  being  

served.  Placing reliance on the reasoning rendered in the  

aforesaid  verdict  the  objection  raised  herein  stands  

overruled.

10) In the light of this, now let us examine the submissions  

of  the  petitioners  on merits.  The decision of  this  Court  in  

Manzoor Ali  Khan (supra)  was based on two premises,  

firstly,  that  guideline  governing  the  same  subject  matter  

already exists as framed by the Directorate of Advertising  

and  Visual  Publicity  (DAVP)  as  well  as  Department  of  

Information  in  each  of  the  States  and  secondly,  that  the  

matter is squarely covered against the petitioners in view of  

the  judgment  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  in  the  case  of  

Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar (supra).  It is the stand of  

the petitioners that the DAVP guidelines relied upon by this  

Court  in  the  Manzoor  Ali  Khan  (supra)  and  by  the  

respondents in its counter affidavit in the present case are  

irrelevant for  the consideration of the issues raised in  the  

7

Page 8

present  writ  petitions.   Further,  it  was submitted  that  the  

decision  in  Laxman  Moreshwar  Mahurkar  (supra)  is  

clearly distinguishable with the facts and issues raised in the  

present  public  interest  litigation.   We  shall  analyse  both  

these grounds in detail in the ensuing paragraphs.

11) Primarily,  objection  against  admitting  these  writ  

petitions  was  that  there  exists  substantive  guidelines  

regulating the Governments’ advertisements issued by the  

DAVP  and  thus  the  task  of  this  Court  will  be  rendered  

infructuous. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for  

the  Union  of  India  reiterated  the  stand  taken  by  the  

Government in their counter-affidavit filed in the year 2003  

as  well  as  in  2013  and  brought  to  our  notice  the  New  

Advertisement  Policy  [with  effect  from  02.10.2007]  

formulated by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,  

DAVP, which is the nodal agency of the Government of India  

for advertisement by various Ministries and organizations of  

Government  of  India  including  public  sector  undertakings  

and autonomous bodies.  It is seen from the Advertisement  

Policy of 2007 that the primary objective of the Government  

8

Page 9

is  to  secure the widest  possible coverage of the  intended  

content  or  message  through  newspapers  and  journals  of  

current  affairs  as  well  as  Science,  Art,  Literature,  Sports,  

Films, Cultural Affairs, etc.  The Policy further states that in  

releasing advertisements to newspapers/journals, DAVP does  

not  take  into  account  the  political  affiliation  or  editorial  

policies  of  newspapers/journals.   However,  it  states  that  

DAVP  would  avoid  releasing  advertisements  to  

newspapers/journals, which incite or tend to incite communal  

passion,  preach  violence,  offend  the  sovereignty  and  

integrity  of  India  or  socially  accepted  norms  of  public  

decency  and  behaviour.   The  Policy  dated  02.10.2007  

supersedes  all  earlier  orders  and  the  same  is  the  New  

Advertisement Policy of the Government of India.  The said  

Policy contains 27 clauses.  A reading of these clauses shows  

that  the  Government  advertisements  are  not  intended  to  

give financial assistance to the newspapers/journals.  DAVP  

maintains a list of newspapers/journals approved for release  

of  advertisements  by  empanelling  acceptable  

newspapers/journals.  It  further reinforces that due care is  

9

Page 10

taken  to  empanel  newspapers/journals  having  readership  

from different sections of the society in different parts of the  

country.   The  Policy  also  makes  it  clear  that  all  Central  

Ministries/Departments/attached  and  Subordinate  

offices/field offices shall route their advertisements, including  

display advertisements, through DAVP.  It also maintains a  

Panel Advisory Committee (PAC) for considering applications  

of newspapers/journals for being empanelled for publishing  

Government  advertisements.   This  Committee  shall  be  

headed by the Director General, DAVP and shall include the  

Additional  Director  General  (Media  &  

Communication)/Deputy  Director  General  (Media  &  

Communication) in the Press Information Bureau (PIB), Press  

Registrar/Deputy  Press  Registrar  and  Director/Deputy  

Secretary/Under Secretary in the Ministry of Information and  

Broadcasting dealing with Print Media.  The Committee will  

also have one representative each from the Association of  

big, medium and small newspapers.  The recommendations  

of  the  PAC  as  accepted  by  the  DG,  DAVP  regarding  

empanelment of a newspaper shall be final.  It also shows  

10

Page 11

that all empanelled newspapers/publications will be asked to  

enter into a rate contract, which will be valid for a period of  

three years.  It further provides that the rate structure for  

payment against advertisements released by DAVP will  be  

worked  out  as  per  the  recommendations  of  the  Rate  

Structure  Committee.   The  rates  depend  on  certified  

circulation of a newspaper.   

12) A perusal of various clauses in the Advertisement Policy  

of the Government of India dated 02.10.2007 as elaborated  

in  the  aforesaid  paragraph  shows  that  all  the  norms  as  

mentioned in various clauses are to be adhered to in overall  

media strategy of the Ministries and Departments to ensure  

maximum coverage at optimum cost. Thus, it is vividly clear  

that the DAVP guidelines, which are available in the public  

domain, only deal with the eligibility and empanelment of the  

newspapers/journals or other media, their rates of payment,  

and  such  like  matters.  Besides,  it  only  specifies  that  in  

releasing  advertisement  to  newspapers/journals,  the  DAVP  

would not take into account the political affiliation or editorial  

policies  of  newspapers/journals.   Hence,  it  is  evident  that  

11

Page 12

there  is  no  policy  or  guideline  to  regulate  the  content  of  

Government advertisements and to exclude the possibility of  

any  mala  fide use  or  misuse  of  public  funds  on  

advertisements  in  order  to  gain  political  mileage  by  the  

political establishment.  

13) As  far  as  the  second  objection  with  regard  to  

applicability  of  the  decision  in  Laxman  Moreshwar  

Moharkar  (supra) is  concerned,  we  have  analyzed  the  

same and are of the cogent view that the said decision of the  

Bombay High Court is clearly distinguishable from the facts  

and issues raised in the present petitions. The aforesaid case  

pertains  to  applicability  or  non-applicability  of  a  particular  

rule viz., Rule 189 of the Law Officers (Conditions of Service)  

Rules and Rules for the Conduct of the Legal Affairs of the  

Government whereas the issues raised in these writ petitions  

are not pursuant to violation of any specific rule or law rather  

a  question  of  public  importance  has  been  raised  as  to  

whether  the  State,  which  is  duty  bound  to  allocate  its  

resources for the maximum public good, can cavalierly spend  

huge  sums  of  public  funds  in  order  to  derive  political  

12

Page 13

mileage. Thus, the ratio laid down in  Laxman Moreshwar  

Moharkar (supra) is not relevant for consideration of issues  

raised in these writ petitions.

14) Learned senior counsel  for  the respondent  -  UOI  also  

made  reference  to  the  decision  in  Umesh Mohan Sethi  

(supra)  rendered  on 12.12.2012 by the  Delhi  High  Court  

which  pertained  to  similar  issues  as  raised  in  these  writ  

petitions  to  substantiate  their  stand.  In  Umesh  Mohan  

Sethi (supra),  it was held that if the Government purports  

to spend money for a purpose which it  characterizes as a  

public  purpose  though  in  point  of  fact  it  is  not  a  public  

purpose,  the  proper  place  to  criticize  the  action  of  the  

Government  would be  the  legislature  or  the  Appropriation  

Committee  and  Courts  are  not  the  forum  in  which  the  

Government’s  action  could  be  sought  to  be  criticized  or  

restrained.  Besides,  the  Delhi  High  Court  relied  on  the  

decision  of  Manzoor  Ali  Khan (supra)  rendered  by  this  

Court and dismissed the petition as misconceived.  

13

Page 14

15) Learned counsel  for  the petitioners responded to this  

contention by asserting that any government activity has to  

satisfy  the  test  of  reasonableness  and public  interest  and  

while dealing with public funds and property, public interest  

is  of  paramount  consideration.  In  Kasturi  Lal  Lakshmi  

Reddy vs. State of J&K (1980) 4 SCC 1, this Court has held  

as under:-

“12. …Any action taken by the Government with a view to  giving effect to any one or more of the Directive Principles  would  ordinarily,  subject  to  any  constitutional  or  legal  inhibitions or other over-riding considerations, qualify for  being regarded  as reasonable,  while  an action  which is  inconsistent with or runs counter to a Directive Principle  would incur the reproach of being unreasonable.”

*** *** ***

“14.  Where any Governmental  action  fails  to satisfy  the  test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above  and  is  found  to  be  wanting  in  the  quality  of  reasonableness  or  lacking  in  the  element  of  public  interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. It  must  follow  as  a  necessary  corollary  from  this  proposition  that  the  Government  cannot  act  in  a  manner which would benefit a private party at the  cost,  of  the  State;  such  an  action  would  be  both  unreasonable and contrary to public interest…..”

16) In Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of UP (1991) 1 SCC  

212, this Court unequivocally rejected the argument based  

on the  theory of  absolute  discretion  of  the  administrative  

14

Page 15

authorities and immunity of their action from judicial review  

and observed:

“It  can no  longer  be  doubted  at  this  point  of  time that  Article of the Constitution of India applies also to matters  of Governmental policy and if the policy or any action of  the  government,  even  in  contractual  matters,  fails  to  satisfy  the  test  of  reasonableness,  it  would  be  unconstitutional.”

Similar  reasoning  was  rendered  in  Ramana  Dayaram  

Shetty vs. The International Airport Authority of India  

(1979) 3 SCR 1014 and in Col. A.S. Sangwan vs. Union of  

India (1980) Supp SCC 559. Hence, it  was submitted that  

judicial review of Government policies is permissible if it does  

not satisfy the test of reasonableness and against the public  

interest.  

17) Although, as asserted by the respondents herein that it  

is not the  prima facie jurisdiction of this Court to examine  

what constitutes as “public purpose” or not however, as per  

judicial precedents in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy (supra)  

and other case laws as stated above, this Court is duty bound  

to  interfere  whenever  the  Government  acts  in  a  manner,  

which  is  unreasonable  and  contrary  to  public  interest.  In  

15

Page 16

succinct,  the  Government  cannot  act  in  a  manner,  which  

would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an  

action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public  

interest.  The  present  writ  petitions  challenge  the  

Government advertisements of political nature at the cost of  

the public exchequer on the ground that they are in violation  

of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. We shall examine  

and scrutinize the situation as portrayed by the petitioners as  

to whether there is need for specific guidelines to be issued  

by this Court to regulate the same.

18) The  petitioners  further  submitted  that  advertisement  

campaigns  are  undertaken  ostensibly  to  advertise  certain  

public  works  and  almost  all  these  advertisements  contain  

photographs  of  the  Ministers  and  important  political  

personalities  of  the  Government,  which  clearly  show  that  

these  advertisement  are  framed  for  the  purpose  of  

highlighting the achievements of the incumbent government  

and  aim  to  create  an  impression  that  those  particular  

political personalities were directly responsible for providing  

public benefits to the people. In succinct, the use of public  

16

Page 17

office  and  public  funds  for  personal,  political  or  partisan  

purposes  is  clearly  malafide,  illegal  and  not  permissible  

under the Constitution. Thus, it is the stand of the petitioners  

that expenditure on such advertisements is blatant misuse of  

public funds by the Central Government, State Governments,  

their  departments  and  instrumentalities  of  the  State  as  it  

fosters  wastage  of  scarce  funds  of  the  exchequer  in  

promoting  private  partisan  interests  as  against  public  

interest that is destructive of the rule of law.

19) Conversely, the Government of India, in their counter-

affidavit claimed that 60% of the advertisements released by  

the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) on  

behalf  of  various  Ministries/Departments/Public  Sector  

Undertakings  (PSUs)  of  the  Central  Government  relate  to  

classified or display/classified category such as UPSC/SSC or  

recruitment, tender and public notices, etc. The respondents  

asserted  that  government  advertisements  sometime  carry  

messages  from  national  leaders,  Ministers  and  dignitaries  

accompanied  with  their  photographs.   However,  it  is  their  

stand that the purpose of such advertisements is not to give  

17

Page 18

personal  publicity to the leaders or to the political  parties  

they belong to rather the objective is to let the people know  

and have authentic  information about  the  progress of the  

programmes/performance  of  the  government  they  elected  

and form informed opinions, which is one of the fundamental  

rights of the citizens in our democracy as enshrined in the  

Constitution  of  India.  The  composition  of  advertisements  

issued  by  DAVP  during  the  years  2000-01,  2001-02  and  

2002-03 in respect of various Ministries/Departments is given  

in the form of annexure to the counter-affidavit.   It  is the  

stand of the Government that the objective of displaying the  

advertisements  issued  by  DAVP  on  behalf  of  the  

Ministries/Departments  of  the  Government  of  India  is  to  

create awareness among the people about various policies,  

programmes  and  achievements  of  the  Government  and  

advertising  is  an  integral  part  of  dissemination  of  

information, which is essential in a democracy.

20) The contentions raised by the respondents are based on  

clear principle that is bound to be accepted on the face of it.  

The stand that  Government  advertising is  a  mode for  the  

18

Page 19

Government to disseminate to the members of the public, of  

information about a government program, policy or initiative,  

or about any public health or safety or other matter(s), that  

is  funded by or on behalf  of  a  Government  agency,  is  an  

outright  fact  and is  a  must  in  our  democratic  setup.  This  

Court, in its Constitutional wisdom, understands that it is only  

through  such  advertisements  that  the  Government  

communicates with its citizens which plays an important role  

in  efficiently  and  effectively  achieving  the  goals  of  public  

policy.  

21) At the same time, the stand of the petitioners in these  

writ  petitions  is  also  not  entirely  misconceived.  Since  the  

primary cause of government advertisement is to use public  

funds to inform the public  of their  rights,  obligations, and  

entitlements  as  well  as  to  explain  Government  policies,  

programs,  services  and  initiatives,  however,  when  these  

requisites  are  not  fulfilled  in  a  Government  advertisement  

than the whole purpose would be frustrated. The petitioners  

through annexures have brought to the notice of this Court  

numerous  Government  advertisements  released  by  the  

19

Page 20

Central Government, State Governments, their departments  

and instrumentalities of the State which fail to disseminate  

any information to the public of their rights and entitlements  

in  the  Government  policies  rather  only  glorifies  the  

accomplishments of a particular Government. The petitioners  

herein have disputed only such advertisements, which they  

plead to be wastage of public exchequer for political mileage.  

While the boundary lines can blur,  we need to distinguish  

between  the  advertisements  that  are  part  of  Government  

messaging and daily business and advertisements that are  

politically motivated. It is yet further pleaded that even the  

Election Commission of India though had expressed concern  

but could not do anything owing to lack of jurisdiction in the  

matter.  

22) Although this issue of concern may be new to India but  

not for other countries. Governments around the world spend  

huge amount  of  money yearly  for  advertisements  in  their  

local media and most of the countries have faced similar fate  

of situation as portrayed in these petitions. The solution to  

this  crisis  was  arrived  at  by  framing  the  Government  

20

Page 21

advertising  guidelines,  which  set  out  the  policies  and  

processes  that  apply  to  Government  advertisement.  Few  

countries which adopted Government advertising policies are  

as under:-

Australia

Australia  adopted  new  policy  to  regulate  Government  

advertisement  in  response  to  nearly  a  decade  of  abuse,  

during  which  public  advertising  was  corruptly  used  to  

promote  a  partisan  agenda.  The  focus  of  policy  

recommendations  is  to  depoliticize  public  advertising,  

prevent conflict of interest, and devolve power in such a way  

that no person or group can easily exploit public advertising  

funds for individual or political gains.

Canada

Canada also has strict conflict of interest guidelines, which  

promote  transparency,  accountability  and  separation  of  

authority to discourage abuse of public advertising funds for  

individual, financial or political gains.

21

Page 22

Similar  policies  exist  in  almost  all  developed  countries  to  

check the abuse of Government advertisements for private  

benefits.  

23) There are five principles laid down in  Guidelines On  

Information and Advertising Campaigns by Australian  

Government Departments and Agencies, which will  be  

applicable to all Government advertising campaigns.  

Principle  1: Campaigns  should  be  relevant  to  government  responsibilities.

Principle 2: Campaign materials should be presented in an  objective,  fair,  and accessible  manner  and be  designed  to  meet  the  objectives  of  the  campaign.

Principle 3: Campaign materials should be objective and not  directed at promoting party political interests.

Principle 4: Campaigns should be justified and undertaken in  an efficient, effective and relevant manner.

Principle 5: Campaigns must comply with legal requirements  and procurement policies and procedures.

24) In  these  circumstances,  conceding  that  the  existing  

DAVP policy/guidelines  do not  govern  the  issues  raised  in  

these writ petitions and do not lay down any criteria for the  

22

Page 23

advertisements to qualify for “public purpose” as opposed to  

partisan  ends  and  political  mileage,  there  is  a  need  for  

substantive guidelines to be issued by this Court until  the  

legislature  enacts  a  law  in  this  regard.  The  petitioners  

through their written submissions have proposed guidelines  

in  this  regard,  however,  on  going  through  the  same,  we  

recognized that the petitioners herein have basically adopted  

the proposed guidelines verbatim from other jurisdiction viz.,  

Australia.  Accordingly,  we  do  not  think  that  it  will  be  

appropriate for this Court to adopt the guidelines of other  

country  without  application  of  mind  and  appreciation  of  

situation in our country.   

25) Keeping in mind that the time available to this Court is  

limited and the subject matter for which guidelines are to be  

framed is sensational and significant, we deem it proper to  

constitute  a  Committee  consisting  of  three  members  to  

undertake  the  task  of  suggesting  guidelines  to  this  Court  

after  an  intricate  study of  all  the  best  practices  in  public  

advertisements  in  different  jurisdictions and to submit  the  

same before this Court preferably within a period of three  

23

Page 24

months.  The  Committee  will  consist  of  the  following  

members:

1) Prof. (Dr.) N.R. Madhava Menon,  former Director, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal

2) Mr. T.K. Viswanathan,  former Secretary General, Lok Sabha  

3) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate  

In  order  to  coordinate  and  render  assistance  to  the  

Committee, we appoint the Secretary, Ministry of Information  

and Broadcasting as Member Secretary.

26) The matter be posted for further direction before this  

Court on the expiry of three months from today along with  

the  suggestions  as  may  be  submitted  by  the  Committee  

pursuant to this judgment.

.…….…………………………CJI.                      (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                    (RANJAN GOGOI)                                   

………….…………………………J.                    (N.V. RAMANA)                                   

NEW DELHI;  APRIL 23, 2014.

24