Govt in violation of Supreme Court ruling of 2015
SHILLONG, Oct 6: The state government , or rather, Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma has drawn severe criticism for displaying his image on a variety of government materials, including public welfare documents like CM Connect and the recently-launched CM Impact guidebooks. This growing trend of personalisation is in direct violation of a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits political leaders’ images in government-funded advertisements, a decision aimed at preventing “personality cults” funded by taxpayers.
The 2015 Supreme Court ruling, based on recommendations from a committee led by legal scholar NS Madhava Menon, mandated that only the President, Prime Minister, and Chief Justice of India could appear in government-sponsored advertisements.
The apex court had underscored the necessity of focusing on government policies rather than promoting individuals, to ensure public funds remained dedicated to the policy itself rather than the personalities behind them.
The Menon Committee was established in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from the NGO Common Cause, which argued that government funds were being used to bolster political leaders’ images.
Although the committee pushed for a full ban on politicians’ images in such ads, the court compromised, allowing the three national leaders’ photos under strict approval requirements.
Chief Minister Conrad K Sangma, however, continues to feature prominently across materials that serve public and educational purposes. Critics argue that this visibility risks politicising welfare programmes, especially as these materials circulate widely in community centres and schools. While the court’s 2015 ruling focused on advertisements, the principles applied, emphasising neutrality in government communication could potentially extend to materials intended for public or educational distribution.
The ruling also addressed content regulation, requiring that government materials remain politically neutral, excluding any political party symbols or flags.
Exceptions were made for commemorations of national figures like Mahatma Gandhi, yet photos of current political leaders were deemed inappropriate for neutral, publicly-funded communications.
In 2018, several states appealed this decision, arguing it limited the rights of states and ministers within India’s federal framework.
The Supreme Court adjusted its stance, allowing chief ministers and Union ministers’ images in some ads, but this has yet to extend to educational or purely public welfare materials.
For Meghalaya, this discussion raises an important question about leveraging public communication without appearing to politicise social programmes.
As the chief minister’s image becomes an increasingly common sight on public welfare documents, the debate grows over whether these practices risk overshadowing policy work, shifting the spotlight onto the individual, a scenario the Supreme Court ruling was intended to prevent.