The verdict came on pleas by Centre and states including poll-bound West Bengal and Tamil Nadu which had sought review of the Supreme Court judgement barring publication of leaders' photos in advertisements except those of the President, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India, saying it infringed fundamental rights and federal structure.
"We review our judgement by which we have allowed the publication of pictures of the President of India and Prime Minister in the government advertisements. Now we allow the publication of pictures of Union Ministers of concerned departments, Chief Ministers, Governors and State Ministers of the concerned departments.
The apex court had on March 9 reserved its verdict on the review pleas in which it was submitted that besides Prime Minister, pictures of central ministers, chief ministers and others state ministers be allowed to be carried in public advertisements.
The court had earlier barred publication of photos of leaders in government advertisements except those of the President, PM and the CJI.
Earlier, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, had strongly favoured review of the verdict on various grounds including that if Prime Minister's photograph is allowed in the advertisements then the same right should be available to his cabinet colleagues as the PM is the "first among the equals".
The Centre, while seeking review, had earlier said that
Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) of the Indian Constitution empowers the state and the citizens to "give and receive" information and it cannot be curtailed and regulated by the courts.
The Attorney General had said if only Prime Minister's photograph is allowed in government advertisements then it can be said that it would promote "personality cult" which has been described as "an anti-thesis of democracy" by this court only.
The Centre had on October 27 last year joined hands with several state governments in seeking review of the Supreme Court's landmark judgement on the issue.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Common Cause which had filed the original PIL on review petitions filed by the states, had told the bench that certain state governments were violating the apex court's orders.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
