Should political ads be allowed on TV?

TV advertising is an effective way of reaching out to the electorate, but a distinction can be made between ads and programmes.

Arvind Sharma
Chairman & CEO,
Leo Burnett

It's election time once again and, as usual, the impending polls have brought on a fresh wave of debate on a host of election-related issues. But a topic that needs to be listed along with all others for debate is whether political advertising on television should be permitted.

I find it interesting that most people would segregate political advertising from advertising in general. I'd say this segregation exists largely in the mind; at the core both are about freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

Whether it is to choose between brands or political parties, people need information if they have to make an informed choice. And in a country as big, populous and diverse as India, television is the most mass and cost-effective way to connect with large groups of population at one go.

We cannot continue to ignore India's unique position as the world's largest democracy. The power of democratic thinking is rooted in three principles:

• Individuals have the right to pursue a desired course of action provided it does not violate the law.
• The public has the right to know all sides of the story.
• The media has the right to function independently.

Many will ask if the people of India have the wisdom and judgement to sift between different information inputs bombarded at them, and make an intelligent choice. Over more than 50 years of democracy in India, there has been much to support this belief.

No society comprises only intellectual giants, and India is no exception. But time and again through different political climates and events, the Indian electorate has shown its ability to make a discerning choice of government.

On the whole, the governments that have been committed to progress, development and social justice have been voted back to power, and the governments that have deviated substantially from this path have been thumbed down.

While opinions on the individual contributions of different parties are bound to be subjective and hotly debated, the fact is that this is a sign of a good, mature democracy that is capable of seeking more meaningful solutions to core issues from its representatives, instead of getting misled by hollow, seductive election talk.

The role that the media has played in India's development is significant. Thanks to the independence that mass media have enjoyed, especially in the past decade, they have contributed to broadening the horizons of the Indian viewer by exposing him to different ideologies, values, lifestyles, points of view and systems across the world.

This has helped new generation Indians to form their own opinions, instead of echoing those of the earlier generations. Therefore, I believe that progressive liberalisation of the media "" particularly that of television "" would be beneficial in the crafting of a forward-looking nation.

One might argue that any information dissemination process must be supported by a regulatory mechanism that ensures that the information that reaches the public is accurate and objective. But given the argument that all propaganda information has to be approved by the Election Commission, this issue is being sufficiently addressed.

Subsequently, of all the mass media that this information can be routed through, television is by far the most controllable. It would be a tough task to monitor the thousands of print publications in India and the thought of exercising any semblance of control on outdoor hoardings spread across the country is mind-boggling. Television on the other hand, is comparatively easy to monitor and control.

All said and considered, many of the democracies of the world "" including the US and the UK "" believe in the sanctity of political advertising on television, which is why it has become one of the most common ways of connecting with the electorate.

In India, with its huge population, the issue of connecting with people is much more complex. Traditionally, political rallies served the purpose of political information dissemination but with the size of constituencies getting larger, television has emerged as a cost-effective medium with the reach and viewership to connect with large pockets of the population at one go. It's time to give television a chance!

Abhishek M Singhvi
Congress spokesperson and lawyer

"The Election Commission (EC) had discussed and considered the matter relating to the prohibition of advertisements of a political nature, following a reference to it by the ministry of information and broadcasting.

This reference came in the light of an Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement in writ petitions 18328 and 18419 of 1999, which struck down the EC's orders dated August 20, 1999, regarding a ban on political advertisements on private TV channels.

The EC found that Rule 7(3) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, prescribed under Section 6 (advertisement code) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which prohibits advertisement of political nature or towards any political end on cable television network, should continue to be on the statute books.

The EC, therefore, recommended that the government continue to enforce the provisions of Rule 7(3) of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994, for election-related political advertisement on the electronic media.

I have not seen the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgement. But the Cable Act can be viewed, first, from the perspective of an existing state of legal affairs; and second, from a normative perspective of what is right and ought to be.

As far as the first is concerned, the safer, legal view for a person or political party intending to embark on a course of political advertising is that such telecasts are prohibited.

For a variety of reasons, a person or political party may not want to wish prosecution for violating Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 7(3) of the Rules that, at first blush, reflect this prohibition.

However, if a certain amount of legal adventurism is permissible, an arguable distinction on existing law can be made bet-ween advertisements, which are prohibited, and progra-mmes, which are not. Section 2(g) and Rule 2(g) of the Rules define "programmes" in an understandably wide and inclusive manner.

While most advertisements would constitute programmes, the reverse is not necessarily true. The example of a documentary on the Congress (I) or the life history of a Congress leader, illustrate this point.

Third, turning to the normative, I do strongly believe that this prohibition is not only unnecessary and undesirable but also it is likely to be struck down as violative of the Fundamental Right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(a) of the Constitution.

The direct and penumbrical coverage of this article has been significantly expanded by the Supreme Court and, indeed, after the Tata Press case, confirms free speech even by way of Yellow Pages advertising that has been held to be a part of Article 19(1)(a).

Consequently, the prohibition of the Cable Act may disappear on such a constitutional challenge. That may, however, occur well after elections in view of the extremely short time available to mount a successful adjudication upon such a constitutional challenge.

In a nutshell:

• Existing law prima facie appears to ban advertising with political content.
• The safest, most conservative stand for any political party or individual wishing to avoid the infamy of prosecution would be to follow this prima facie legal interpretation.
• However, an arguable case on interpretation can be raised even on existing law on the basis that only advertisements with political content are barred but programmes "" for example, documentaries or video films on a party or its leaders "" are not. Needless to add, some amount of legal adventurism is involved in this option.
• A court challenge assailing the Cable Act as being violative of free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) may well lead to the removal of this prohibition.
• The final decision may, however, take time so as to render it irrelevant for the eight-week long electoral period.

(The views expressed here are personal)