Sunday, Sep 27, 2020 | Last Update : 07:13 AM IST

186th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra130045899280634761 Andhra Pradesh6614585881695606 Tamil Nadu5693705138369148 Karnataka5572124503028417 Uttar Pradesh3785333136865450 Delhi2644502284365147 West Bengal2410592110204665 Odisha201059165432820 Telangana1838661524411091 Bihar175898161510881 Assam167374136712625 Kerala160935111327636 Gujarat1303911105923394 Rajasthan1247301042881412 Haryana1205781012731273 Madhya Pradesh117588932382152 Punjab107096840253134 Chhatisgarh9856566860777 Jharkhand7770964515661 Jammu and Kashmir69832495571105 Uttarakhand4533233642555 Goa3107125071386 Puducherry2548919781494 Tripura2412717464262 Himachal Pradesh136799526152 Chandigarh112128677145 Manipur9791760263 Arunachal Pradesh8649623014 Nagaland5768469311 Meghalaya5158334343 Sikkim2707199431 Mizoram178612880
  Opinion   Oped  04 Jun 2017  Withholding of ads by govt, a threat to press freedom

Withholding of ads by govt, a threat to press freedom

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai
Published : Jun 4, 2017, 12:11 am IST
Updated : Jun 4, 2017, 12:11 am IST

The Press Council of India has built up case law on improper grant of ads by the state.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi (Photo: AP)
 Prime Minister Narendra Modi (Photo: AP)

Since the Narendra Modi government came to power in 2014, pro-BJP newspapers and periodicals have reaped a rich bounty from the Central and state governments, from local bodies and public sector undertakings (PSUs).

They are flooded with advertisements, regardless of their circulation or importance. All this is at the expense of established dailies and periodicals and in gross abuse of power and public funds. At issue are the fundamental rights to equality and to freedom of speech and expression.


In his classic Constitutional Law of India, H.M. Seervai refuted the state’s assumption that since it is the custodian of public funds, it can place advertisements in journals as it deemed fit, and withhold them from the ones it disliked.

As far back as in 1884, the US Supreme Court ruled: “The US does not and cannot hold property, as a monarch may, for private or personal purposes. All the property and revenues of the US must be held and applied, as all taxes, duties, imposts and excises must be laid and collected, ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US’.”

Later, the court said: “The US holds the title to the property in question as it holds all other property, for public purposes and not for private purposes.”


Recently, the Indian SC judges expressed their displeasure at state ads which projected the chief ministers of states and detailed at public expense their splendid achievements to a captive audience.

In 1981, Eenandu, a mass circulating Telugu daily, successfully challenged in the Andhra Pradesh high court a government order laying down guidelines for grant of ads to the press by government departments and PSUs.

The court observed that the government raised crores of rupees as revenue, and as the government was the guardian of state finances it was its duty to use the revenue for the benefit of all concerned.

The government spent considerable funds on advertisements, and “it should not use the power over such large funds… to muzzle the press or as a weapon to punish newspapers which criticise its policies and actions.”


“It has to use the funds in a reasonable manner consistently with the object of the advertisement viz to educate and inform the public about the activities of the government.” The offending guidelines were quashed.

In 1954, the first press commission opined that “the liberty and freedom to place advertisements wherever he likes, which a private advertiser enjoys, cannot be conceded to the government which is a trustee of public funds and, therefore, bound to utilise them, without discrimination, to the best advantage of the public”.

It added “any other method of placing advertisements is likely to carry with it two defects. It would be an unfair use of public funds. It would also render the government open to the charge that the power of placing advertisements is being exercised against papers whose editorial policy is against the government for the time being; or as a patronage to those papers which support it.”


This was the case “even if, in respect of the government’s responsibility for the use of public funds, the legislature… takes no objection to such expenditure, the danger involved in the latter is so overwhelming that, from the point of view of maintaining independent journalism, we consider that advertisements should be issued by the government only in conformity with the principles enunciated…”

The legislature, in which the government commands a majority, is no check on abuse of power.

The Press Council of India has built up case law on improper grant of ads by the state. One notable case laid down the rules comprehensively. It concerned the Tribune published from Chandigarh. It emphasised that, first, in the matter of distributing ads, a government’s discretion was not absolute. It was conditional on the ads not being placed or withheld for the object of influencing a particular paper’s editorial policy or as a means of punishment for persisting in an editorial policy not meeting its approval.


Second, the withdrawal of ads, since they attempted to influence editorial policy, constituted an invasion of press freedom. The government is a trustee of public funds and is bound to use them without improper discrimination.

Withholding of ads by the government is a threat to press freedom, if this be for publishing matter not liked by the government, or if it attempts to coerce the editor to toe the line of the government, or by way of unlawful discrimination at the executive level, or by way of punishment for the editorial policy of a paper or criticism of its policies.

By arrangement with Dawn

Tags: narendra modi, public sector undertakings, us supreme court, press council of india