 "SC order banning netas in ads: Jayalalithaa's govt may have found a loophole, for now")
On 26 May, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi completed a year in office, front pages of various newspapers had a different tale to tell - that AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa was returning as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. “Glorious Rule of Four Years – Amma’s Rule Forever”, a state-sponsored advertisement said across the front pages of major dailies across cities, highlighting the achievements of the Tamil Nadu government. However, what was clearly missing was the photo of the Chief Minister. The absence of a photo of Jayalalithaa was thanks to a 13 May Supreme Court order that said government ads can feature pictures only of the Prime Minister, President, and Chief Justice of India. While several state governments including Kerala and Uttar Pradesh have claimed that they will appeal the order, Jayalalithaa’s administration seems to have found an easy way out - for now at least. [caption id=“attachment_2275548” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]
The advertorial that appeared in Tuesday’s edition of The Indian Express.[/caption] On 27 May, a day after it’s front page advertisement, the TN government had issued another publicity-driven advertisement in The Economic Times, titled ‘Tamil Nadu’s forward march - Fabulous 4 years of AIADMK government.’ The ‘consumer connect initiative’ which appeared in the business daily’s supplement Panache, had the photograph of Jayalalithaa, as well as the name of her party - AIADMK - both an apparent violation of the Supreme Court order, (The advertorial is
accessible here
.) On Tuesday, the Jayalalithaa administration
issued a full-page advertorial in
The Indian Express
, once again highlighting the achievements of the government and yet again with a full portrait of Amma. Interestingly, in what could well be a coincidence, the advertorial has been issued just a day after the Karnataka government decided to appeal in the Supreme Court against the acquittal of Jayalalithaa in the disproportionate assets case. The advertorial, titled “Tamil Nadu - Celebrating four years of development” covers the state government’s progress in investments, education and the energy sector. While one may debate over the distinction between an advertisement and advertorial, the fact that both of them are publicity material for the government is undeniable.
Speaking to The Wire,
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said those in violation of the order should first be warned and then punished. Bhushan represented NGO Common Cause, which had filed the petition in the Supreme Court that resulted in the order. The advertorial may be a testing of the waters by the state government to see just how far the Supreme Court order stretches. As we’ve noted with the Tamil Nadu government’s front page advertisements, while it adhered to the apex court order and had no picture of any politician, a quick look at the advertisement and no one would have any doubt about who was to be praised. As
Firstpost’s editor-in-chief points out,
the Supreme Court’s ban has flopped:
“There is no picture of Jaya in the ad, but can anyone be in any doubt who the ads really celebrate? The ads hail the “dynamic leadership” of “Puratchi Talaivi” (Revolutionary Leader) “Selvi J Jayalalithaa, hoping that her “four glorious years” in power will ensure that the electorate extends “Amma’s rule forever.” How is the non-use of Jaya’s picture going to end the cult of personality that the Supreme Court wanted to end?”
Moreover, he argued that the Supreme Court order was wrong on several counts, and that the Parliament in fact should assert itself and make a law restricting court jurisdiction in such matters. Among the questions raised, he argued that the Supreme Court bench that issued the order perhaps forgot to realise that in the country’s federal structure, the CM and Governor should be granted the same status as the PM and the President. However, in this case Jayalalithaa may just manage to escape censure by the government, despite what might seem like a flagrant disregard for its order. Interestingly, both the advertorials are titled as anniversary-related content, something the SC seemed to have okayed in its order. The court had noted:
“Governments at the Centre as well as in the States often bring out advertisements on completion of a number of days, months and years of governance. In such advertisements, not only the ‘achievements’ are highlighted even the different tasks which are in contemplation are enumerated. By way of example one of the points highlighted may be supply of electricity to each and every village. Though the achievements of a Government should not be a matter of publicity and really ought to be a matter of perception to be felt by the citizens on the results achieved, such advertisements do have the effect of keeping the citizens informed of the government functioning and therefore would be permissible.”
While in keeping with the Supreme Court order, the government is yet to appoint an ombudsman that will look at violations made by state government, political parties and leaders will continue to use the apparent loophole in the order to its advantage. You might have escaped the colourful ads that accompanied the launch of every scheme by a state government, but expect far more irrelevant anniversaries to be celebrated while political parties appeal to get some more leeway when it come to advertising their deeds.