Why in News
During the run up to the general elections to Lok Sabha of 2004, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government put out advertisements with the tag line ‘India Shining.’
The campaign led to a controversy over the use of public money.
Reports state that an estimated ₹150 crore was spent for this campaign, arguably one of the biggest government-sponsored advertisement campaigns until then.
Over the past two decades, this trend has caught up with both Central and State governments spending a lot on advertisements before elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising
The Committee on Content Regulation in Government Advertising (CCRGA) is a three-member body set up by the Government of India.
Established: 2016, based on directions from the Supreme Court in 2015.
Purpose: Regulate the content of advertisements issued by central and state governments across all media platforms.
Address complaints from the public regarding violation of Supreme Court guidelines for government advertising.
Take suo motu (on its own initiative) action on any advertisement violating the guidelines.
Recommend corrective measures.
Government advertisements should focus on the government's constitutional and legal duties, as well as citizen rights and entitlements.
Maintain political neutrality and avoid promoting a specific political party or leader.
Not be used to patronize particular media houses.
Some states have their own committees to regulate government advertising content, while others have consented to CCRGA oversight.
There have been instances of disagreement about CCRGA's jurisdiction, such as the Delhi government challenging its authority in 2020.
Supreme Court Guidelines on govt. Advertisements
The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) and the Law Commission report (1999) advocated state funding of elections.
This means that the government will contribute money to political parties or candidates for them to contest elections.
The feasibility and mechanism for implementing this measure is doubtful in the present context.
It requires consensus among all the political parties and discipline in following the norms of such state funding.
Nevertheless, the issue of the burgeoning cost of elections can be sidestepped only at our own peril.
The CMS pegs the likely expenditure during the 2024 general elections at ₹1 lakh crore.
In this regard, certain practicable steps for creating a level playing field and ensuring free and fair elections can be implemented if there is political will.
These are based on the report, ‘Proposed Electoral Reforms’, submitted by the Election Commission of India in 2016.
First, government advertisements should be banned six months prior to any general election.
Second, the law must be amended to state that a party’s ‘financial assistance’ to its candidate should also be within the limits of election expenditure prescribed for a candidate.
Third, there should be a ceiling on expenditure by parties.
This may be kept at not more than the expenditure ceiling limit provided for a candidate multiplied by the number of candidates of the party contesting the election.
Finally, additional judges can be appointed in High Courts for speedy disposal of election-related cases that would act as a deterrent against the violation of norms.
These reforms would require bipartisan political support to be effected.
However, unless they are implemented, the massive expenses of election spectacles will be borne by us, ‘We the people’.
COMMENTS