The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vijayawada, on Wednesday, declined to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the frequent publication of photographs of ruling party ministers and leaders in government-funded advertisements. The court disposed of the petition, suggesting the complainant take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner's Argument Against Advertisement Misuse
The PIL was filed by Y Kondala Rao, a railway employee from Vijayawada. He sought the court's intervention to stop what he argued was the blatant misuse of public funds for political mileage through state-issued advertisements. Representing the petitioner, advocate Jada Sravan Kumar presented a clear legal argument before the bench.
Kumar contended that the state government is violating established Supreme Court guidelines. He cited the apex court's directives which clearly state that government advertisements at the national level should only feature photographs of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Chief Justice of India. For state-level advertisements, the permissible photographs are limited to the Governor, the Chief Minister, and the minister directly in charge of the relevant department.
The counsel argued that the Andhra Pradesh government was flouting these norms by repeatedly issuing advertisements, almost every other day, featuring photographs of various ministers and political leaders beyond the sanctioned list. He urged the High Court to take serious note of this violation and even initiate contempt of court proceedings.
High Court's Rationale for Disposal
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, heard the arguments. However, the court decided not to intervene in the matter. The judges noted that since the PIL itself was based on the alleged violation of specific Supreme Court judgments, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to seek redressal from the apex court itself.
The High Court bench formally disposed of the petition after advising the petitioner's counsel to approach the Supreme Court. This decision effectively means the High Court will not conduct any proceedings or pass any orders on this specific issue at this stage.
Implications and Next Steps
This development highlights the ongoing tension between government publicity and electoral ethics. The petitioner's attempt to get the state's high court to act against perceived propaganda has been redirected to the nation's highest judicial body. The case now puts the onus on the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce its own guidelines on the use of public funds in government advertising.
The disposal of the PIL leaves the current advertisement practices of the state government unchallenged in the immediate term. It remains to be seen whether the petitioner, Y Kondala Rao, will pursue the matter further by filing a plea in the Supreme Court, as suggested by the High Court bench.
