Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ghulam Nabi Shaida vs State Of J & K And Ors. on 21 May, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1990J&K11, AIR 1990 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 11
Author: R.P. Sethi
Bench: R.P. Sethi
ORDER R.P. Sethi, J.
1. Being aggrieved of the policy of the respondent-Slate regarding the release of commercial advertisements to the newspapers, the petitioner who is the Printer, Publisher and Editor of daily newspaper "Wadi-Ki-Awaz" has filed this petition with the prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to classify his newspaper and release due share of advertisements to it. It is further prayed that any other writ, order or direction which is deemed necessary may be issued by the Court in this behalf.
2. It is alleged by the petitioner that the policy of his newspaper is independent and he indulges in constructive criticism of Government policy by reflecting and educating the public opinion. It is submitted that the petitioners newspaper has a circulation of 5000 copies per day and he publishes 24 issues per month. The respondent-State has laid down a criterion for the issue of government advertisements to the newspapers which allegedly envisages taking into consideration the calculation, regularity, type of reading, clientele, policy of the publication, etc. A committee has been constituted for classification of newspapers for the purposes of release of advertisements. It is alleged that the said committee last met in March, 1985 and decided to prescribe a qualifying period for considering new publications for issue of advertisements prescribing three months to six months for daily newspapers amongst others. A copy of the minutes of the meeting has been annexed with the petition as annexure P-2. After qualifying the period prescribed the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent 2 requesting to release of advertisements to his newspaper in terms of the decision of the committee constituted by the respondent 2. But the said representation was not disposed of which compelled him to file the present writ petition. It is alleged that there is no classification of newspapers in existence as the same used to be in the past and the release of the advertisements in favour of the petitioner is alleged to have been withheld for the reasons not known to him despite the fact that he was entitled to receive the same. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to receive the advertisements from the respondents as it has qualified to obtain the same on the basis of the length of publication of his newspaper. The public largess is allegedly being distributed in an unreasonable manner and respondents are under an obligation to distribute the commercial advertisements under a policy with the object of encouraging the growth of healthy journalism in the State. The action of the respondents of withholding the advertisements is stated to be arbitrary and controverting their own policy being violative of the petitioners fundamental rights. It is alleged that the action of the respondents tantamounts to curbing the freedom of speech and expression which includes the freedom of press in the country. It is submitted that the petitioner has no source to sustain the continued publication of his newspaper on which his daily expenditure ranges from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- and in the absence of support in the shape of government advertisements, his paper is likely to closedown which according to the petitioner would amount to curbing the freedom of press, speech and expression of the petitioner in violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India The action of the respondents regarding the distribution of the advertisements is alleged to be discriminatory as according to the petitioner Indian Times, Daily Khidmat, Daily Aina, Daily Kashmir Express, Daily Roshni, Daily Zamindar and Daily Morning Times etc. had been released advertisements disproportionately and completely ignoring their circulation which is alleged to be less than the circulation of the petitioner's newspaper. The petitioner's newspaper is claimed to have been picked up for hostile discrimination for no reason whatsoever and the action of the respondents in making discrimination is alleged to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents is mala fide which emanates from extraneous considerations.
3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents on the affidavit of M. Y. Qadri, Assistant Director of Information, J & K Govt. Srinagar, it is submitted that the petitioner's newspaper has been indulging in yellow journalism and flaunting journalistic code by indulging in publication of scurrilous writings, blackmailing, mud-slinging and supporting the secessionist tendencies. It is alleged that the newspaper of the petitioner has been publishing extracts from operation Gibraltar edited by, commando, Jehangir describing the armed intrusion from Pakistan in 1965 and their evil designs in the valley. The petitioner is alleged to be guilty of arousing sentiments of communalism and provocating the youth, besides creating ill-will amongst the people of the State. It is alleged that the paper has been criticising the government policies and programmes which amounts to misrepresentation of fact and blackmailing. The petitioner condemned the launching of family welfare programmes which was described by him as anti-Islamic and aimed at reducing the Muslim population in the Slate. The paper has been giving coverage of the speeches and activities of secessionists and anti-India forces. The paper has been giving wide publicity to the activities and programmes of Muslim United Front and Jamati Islamia of Anantnag. The claim of the petitioner of having a circulation of five thousand copies daily has been vehemently denied and it is submitted that he published only 125 issues during Mar. 4, 1985 to Aug. 1985 against the required number of 138 issues. Similarly he failed to publish the requisite number of issues during the next six months as well. It is submitted that annexure-A attached with the petition was not the criteria for issuing the Government advertisements but only a recorded note of the meeting held by the Review Committee. The respondents have attached annexure-A with the counter-affidavit which is claimed to be the advertisement policy. It is submitted that meetings of the Review Committee are being held from time to time and its last meeting was held in Sept. 1985 whereas the counter was filed in the court on 29th Oct. 1986. It is further submitted that the daily newspaper of the petitioner is being given due share of the advertisements taking into consideration its regularity and get up. No discrimination has ever been made by the respondents. It is submitted that from 21st Oct. 1985 till the date of the counter-affidavit in the court, the newspaper of the petitioner got advertisements worth Rs. 1,19,046/-which is stated to be on the higher side as compared to the rest of the dailies being published from Srinagar. It is submitted that respondents had the right to withhold the release of advertisements to the newspaper of the petitioner since he has been publishing matters reflecting distorted version of events. The respondents submit that they had no intention to stop the release of advertisements to the paper of the petitioner, however lesser flow of advertisements is an outcome of bringing uniformity in the distribution of advertisements.
4. In the objections filed in reply to CMP No. 1906 of 1985 it is submitted that the State had adopted a clear policy with regard to the distribution of advertisements by prescribing certain conditions for eligibility of a newspaper to get the government advertisements. It is submitted that the newspapers in order to become entitled to be brought on (he approved list for the distribution of advertisements has to fulfil the conditions prescribed in the said policy which is reproduced hereunder :
1. "A newspaper, Daily or weekly, would be entitled to advertisement support on the following grounds :
i. the range of circulation in terms o number and are :
a. In the case of Dailies it should be a minimum of 1000 copies and in the case of weeklies a minimum of 500 copies.
b. The statement with regard to the circulation of paper will have to be supported by a certificate from its printing press. While advertisements would be issued to such paper on the basis of this certificate and the discretionary assessment of the Director of Information the statement with regard to their circulation would be sent to the Registrar of Newspaper : Govt. of India, for final confirmation.
ii. Regularity of publications, which should not be less than 75% during the period of 12 months.
iii. The ratio of advertisement and reading material which should be at least 40% and 60%.
iv. Type of its reading clientele, v. Production standards, vi. The policy of the paper.
2. Due care will have also to be taken to ensure that the newspaper approved for advertisements does not:
i. act in a way prejudicial to the unity and integrity of the country :
ii. Express directly or indirectly lack of faith'in, or opposition to the basic ideals of our country, i.e. democracy, socialism and secularity :
iii. Publish inflammatory or other matters likely to foment communal disharmony, regional tension, violence or public disorder:
iv. Indulge in the publication of scurrilous or obscene material violating public decency or morals:
v. flaunt journalistic code as enunciated by the Press Advisory committee, or any other committee set up for the purpose.
All this will, per necessity, leave only genuine newspapers in the field as others will be deprived of the advertisement prop."
5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record
6. Vide court order dt. 3-3-1988 the learned Govt. Advocate was directed to furnish some information for the purposes of effectively deciding the writ petition, in response to which the Govt. Advocate has produced some record along with the letter of Director General, Information, Public Relations and Tourism Publicity dated 12th April, 1988 addressed to him.
7. Mr. M. Aziz the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents has submitted that as the petitioner did not have any right to claim the share for publishing of commercial advertisements in his newspaper, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Elaborating his argument he has submitted that no newspaper has any right to claim the grant of any concession from the Government in the form of advertisements for publication in his newspaper. It is submitted that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner is violated as the freedom of speech and expression did not mean such freedom at the expense and cost of the State or the public funds. It is true that no newspaper can claim any vested interest or an assumed right seeking the release of a specified number of advertisements in his newspaper in lieu of money and in the event of refusal to get the same, can allege that the same amounted to denial of right of freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of speech and expression envisaged by the Constitution is not a freedom which is borrowed, procured or taken on lease from the State at the cost of the public funds. No newspaper therefore has a vested right in it to claim the publication of the advertisements in his newspaper or compel the State to necessarily issue the advertisements for claiming the so-called freedom of speech or expression or of the encouragement of the press. In other words if the State chooses to completely stop the issuance of advertisements in the newspapers in the country, no newspaper can have any grievance or seek relief from the court compelling the State to continue with the practice and policy of issuing advertisements in the newspapers. However it cannot be said that such a grant is merely a concession and no citizen can claim its rational distribution based upon a clear policy. The State is under an obligation to adopt and provide such standards by which its action can be judged rationally without attributing any bias or ill-will. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 (at pp. 1636 and 1637) :
"Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions increasing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. The attainment of socio-economic justice, being a conscious end of State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relationship of direct encounter with State Power-holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. Whatever be the concept of the rule of law, whether it be the meaning given by Dicey in his "The law of the Constitution" or the definition given by Hayak in his "Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of liberty" or the exposition set forth by Merry Jones in his "The Rule of law and the welfare State" there is, as pointed out by Mathew, J. in his article on "The welfare State, rule of law and Natural justice" in Democrary, Equality and Freedom "substantial agreement in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found". It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some right or denial of some privilege.
Today the Government, in a welfare State is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights etc. The Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits services, contracts, quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many forms, but they all share one characteristic. They are steadily taking the place of traditional forms of wealth. These valuables which derive from relationships to Government are of many kinds. They comprise social security benefits, cash grants for political sufferers and the whole scheme of State and local welfare. Then again, thousands of people are employed in the State and the Central Government and local authorities. Licences are required before one can engage in many kinds of business or work. The power of giving licences means power to withhold them and this gives control to the Government or to the agents of the Government on the lives of many people. Many individuals and many more businesses enjoy largess in the form of Government contracts. The contracts often resemble subsidies. It is virtually impossible to lose money on them and many enterprises are set up primarily to do business with Government Government owns and controls hundreds of acres of public land valuable for mining and other purposes. These resources are available for utilisation by private corporations and individuals by way of lease or licence. All these mean growth in the Government largess and with the increasing magnitude and range of governmental functions as we move closer to a welfare State more and more of our wealth consists of these new forms. Some of these forms of wealth may be in the nature of legal rights but the large majority of them are in the nature of privileges. But on that account, can it be said that they do not enjoy any legal protection? Can they be regarded as gratuity furnished by the State so that the State may withhold grant or revoke it at its pleasure? Is the position of the Government in this respect the same as that of a private giver? We do not think so. The law has not been slow to recognise the importance of this new kind of wealth and the need to protect individual interest in it and with that end in view, it has developed new forms of protection. Some interests in Government largess, formerly largess, formerly regarded as privileges, have been recognised as rights while others have been given legal protection not only by forging procedural safeguards but also by confining/structuring and checking Government discretion in the matter of grant of such largess. The discretion of the Government has been to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give or withhold largess in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It is insisted as pointed out by professor Reich in an especially stimulating article on "The new Property" in 73 Yale Law Journal 733, "that Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or unauthorised". The Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in favour of those having gray hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. The Government is still the Government when it acts in the matter of granting largess and it cannot act arbitrarily. It docs not stand in the same position as a private individual."
8. In a democratic form of Government, as we have in this country, it is expected that the Government actions would be without bias, arbitrariness and discrimination based upon equality. In a developing democracy like ours the activities of the Government have a public element which should be performed with fairness and equality. The respondent-Slate as held earlier may not choose to distribute advertisements to the newspapers but if it does so, it must do fairly, without discrimination and without unfair procedure. The policy of grant of largess in the form of distribution of commercial advertisements must be conveyed and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standards. The State cannot be permitted to depart from such standards and norms unless it was shown that the departure was not arbitrary but was based upon some guiding principles and was not irrational, unreasonable, or discriminatory. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Advocate in this behalf cannot be accepted. The respondents so far they carry on with the policy of distribution of advertisements in the newspapers are under an obligation to distribute the same strictly in accordance with a valid, reasonable and rational policy without making any discrimination and such policy must be in conformity with the standards and principles prescribed in this behalf.
9. In a democratic set up committed to the achievement of the rule of law, the role of the press is not merely important but also contributory for achieving the objectives of establishment of democratic welfare state. The press is, therefore, called the fourth estate and has to act as the watchdog of people's interests, rights and privileges. The press in a democratic set up has to be responsible to the people and cannot be allowed to ignore the larger interests of the country. The role of the press is to fearlessly project the problems of people with the object of educating them within the parameters prescribed by the Constitution governing the socio-political economic system in the country. It would, therefore, be in the interest of the State itself to encourage a free, fearless and independent press for achieving the goal of establishment of rule of law and achieving the objectives set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. The welfare state and a responsible press, therefore, are two important wheels of the chariot of democratic system in the country. Both the press and the state have to realise their own responsibilities and be governed by the code of limitations warranted under the sociopolitical system prevalent. To have a responsible press does not mean a press answerable to the State only or acting according to the whims and dictates of the executive. The State cannot be authorised to put restrictions on the press to force the so-called responsibility according to the norms conceived by the ruling party in the country at a particular time, Responsibility of the press is a realised self-imposed responsibility under the constitution and the legal system prevalent. Both the press and the State have, therefore, to play a vocal, important, constructive role by supplementing each other's functions and by sharing the rights and responsibilities in the manner as indicated hereinabove. A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, may not be in a position to achieve the objectives of the establishment of a welfare State. The freedom of the responsible press, therefore, rests on the assumption that the widest possible disseminations of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is made available to the State for the welfare of the people." The press has always to remember that its primary task is to spread truth honestly, diligently and bonafidely by giving news and views without bias, selectivity or distortion. The press may rise to the occasion and publicize the facts which may serve as searchlight of public information and intelligence. It should make honest endeavour to shape and mould public opinion by constructive criticism and comments on important national and international affairs. The press and the State should not as a matter of principle adopt an antagonistic approach or the policy of confrontation lest it may adversely affect the developing democracy in the country. The existence of free, fearless and responsible press is a guarantee of fair criticism necessary for doing justice and achieving the welfare state in the country.
10. The learned Govt. Advocate has relied upon annexure-A being decision No. 609 dated 28-4-1978 of the cabinet to submit that the advertisements were distributed on the basis of the policy incorporated thereunder. The said decision in fact is a letter written by the Secretary to the Cabinet, addressed to the Secretary to Government Information Department, conveying that the Cabinet had considered the memorandum about the distribution of the Government and other advertisements to different newspapers and approved the same with certain modifications. The memorandum submitted to the Cabinet has also been produced, Part-I of which pertains to "guidelines for approved list." In para No. 29 of the said memorandum the Secretary, to Government, Information Department, has stated that the guidelines and procedures prescribed thereunder would be departmental instructions for official use and the Government may in answering questions before the legislature reveal in suitable terms the general criteria and conditions for approval. It is further submitted that the list of newspapers approved for issue of advertisements will, however, continue to be treated as confidential and will not be revealed. Part-1 referred to hereinabove provides :
Part-1 i. "Guide lines for Approved List The information Department maintains a list of newspapers published in Jammu and Kashmir approved for release of official advertisements, classified or otherwise. This list is subject to quarterly review in relation to conditions laid down in Clause (ii) below. The Information Department may, however, make any change in the list upon the adoption of the conditions laid down.
ii. A newspaper published in Jammu and Kashmir may be approved for release of official advertisements if it satisfied the following conditions :
a. has been regularly published for a continuous period of three months where the paper is a daily and six months in other cases, preceding the date of recognition.
Explanation: A newspaper shall be considered to have been regularly published if not less than 75% of its issues published within the period specified in Clause (a) above have come out on due dates.
b. adheres in its publications to the ethical standard laid down by the All India Newspaper Editors Conference and by the All India Working Journalists Federation :
c. Does not act in a way prejudicial to the unity and integrity of the State and the country :
d. does not express directly or indirectly, lack of faith in the constitution of India and the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
e. does not publish inflammatory matter likely to foment communal disharmony, regional tension, violence or public disorder :
f. does not indulge in the publication of scurrilous or obscene matter or offend socially accepted conventions of public decency and morals :
g. does not publish any matter which reflects to distorted version or events or is likely to create disaffection between various sections of populations, and h. has a circulation of more than 1000 copies it it is daily, and more than 500 if a weekly, biweekly, fortnightly or monthly.
provided that any particular newspaper of long standing or catering to some special element of population or regional language in the State may not be debarred from being put on the approved list merely for the reason of low circulation.
iii. The approved list will also indicate roughly the percentage of the total quarterly advertisements value to be issued to each paper in accordance with its standing and circulation. The percentage will be fixed, separately for classified and for display advertisements and will be calculated on the totals for the previous quarters.
iv. The rate of advertisements per single centimeter col. for advertisements shall be as under:
a. Daily newspapers having ciruclation of more than 1000 copies......Rs. 3/- per centimeter plus 50% surcharge.
b. Weekly newspapers having ciruclation of more than 500 copies........Rs. 2.25 per centimeter plus 50% surcharge.
17-A) Certain daily papers and the weekly newspapers Association have been representing for quite sometime past for enhancement of share in the allocation of advertisements to them. In this context they have also referred to the national policy in terms of which all States have been advised to encourage small newspapers by advertisements support so that they are able to become financially viable and increase their circulation. All things considered, we are inclined to accept the suggestion of the Director of Information that no hard and fast ratio of allocation between dailies and weeklies will work in actual practice as release of classified advertisements particularly those advertising situations or inviting tenders or materials will have necessarily to be released to those papers which have regular publication and wide circulation. In any case, the share of the weeklies including fortnightlies and monthlies should not be less than 30% of the total allocation for advertisements. It may be interesting to point out here that we have as many as 74 weeklies in Jammu and 32 in Kashmir. Other things being equal, at the rate of 30% of the total allocation the share of each paper will be less than 900 per annum assuming the total allocation at Rs. 3.00 lacs per annum. Here again the Directorate of Information will have to be very selective in the matter of release of advertisements considering the standard of the mushroom growth of weeklies that we have witnessed during the last decade."
11. The conditions prescribed under the aforesaid guideline in my view are only illustrative or indicative and not conclusive on the subject as is sought to be conveyed by the State. The respondent-Stale is well within its rights to prescribe the guidelines in the policy, some of which have been detailed in the aforesaid guidelines for approved list but "I am unable to agree that the aforesaid memorandum approved by the cabinet can be termed to be a definite policy regarding the distribution of public largess in the form of advertisements to the newspapers published in the State. From the record it appears that the said guideline which are claimed to be a policy were in fact never followed or practised by the different State Governments after its approval by the State Cabinet. The aforesaid guidelines in the first instance cannot be termed to be a policy for the purposes of distribution of advertisements to the newspapers and even if held so cannot be deemed to be effective or according to the needs of the society as much water has flowed in rivers Jehlum and Tawi, after the approval of the aforesaid guidelines by the Cabinet. The aforesaid guidelines which cannot be held to be a substitute for a definite policy regarding the distribution of advertisements to the newspapers in fact appear to have been never followed and in fact flouted with impunity." According to the respondents themselves the newspaper of the petitioner has been indulging in secessionistic and anti-national activities but without there being any change of policy it was conferred with the benefits to the extent of Rs. 1,19,046/-within a period of less than one year as is evident from the affidavit of the respondents. It is interesting to note that the respondents have nowhere stated in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner had changed his policy which was held by them to disentitle him from getting the due share of publishing of government advertisements. Similarly it is nowhere stated that the petitioner ever published the requisite number of issues entitling him to the benefit of the grant of the advertisements as was lately done. The vagueness of the definite policy or even the guidelines is evident from the fact that despite my directions dated 2-3-1988, the requisite information was never supplied to this court presumably with the object of depriving the court from arriving at a conclusion regarding non-existence of a definite policy of distribution of government advertisements. It is not clear as to how the circulation of the newspapers has been determined by the respondents as detailed in the statements furnished in the court along with the letter of Director General of Information and Public Relations. Whereas the petitioner has claimed having a circulation of 5000 copies daily, the statement shows that it has a circulation of 10,000/- The requisite certificates as directed by the court have neither been obtained nor produced in the court. It may be true that the petitioners-newspaper might have increased the circulation but the respondents have not given any detail with respect to the circulation figures of the newspaper as mentioned in the statement attached. It is interesting to note that the respondents have not furnished the full list of dailies or weeklies with their circulation despite direction. It has been shown that there were only Id daily newspapers published from Srinagar and 12 from Jammu. The statement shows that there were only 18 weekly newspapers published from Kashmir Division and 32 from Jammu Division. However the statement showing the value of advertisements issued to the local newspaper during the period from April 1986 to March ending 1988 falsifies the submission of the respondent as it shows that there were 26 dailies published from Kashmir and 20 from Jammu. The said statement shows that 31 weeklies were published from Kashmir Division and 74 from Jammu. 1 have also received a letter addressed by a citizen dated 24-4-1988 regarding the circulation of "Taskeen" daily newspaper from Jammu along with the affidavit of the owner of the press where the said newspaper is allegedly published showing that its circulation was about 200 to 500 copies daily whereas in the statement furnished by the Govt. It is shown that the said newspaper has a circulation of 11884. 1 am not in a position to say whether the allegations made in the letter addressed to the court are correct or not without according any opportunity to the concerned newspaper but 1 cannot refrain from remarking that the guidelines adopted and the so-called policy pursued by the Slate is not free from doubl.
12. Under the circumstances it is held that the respondents are not distributing the advertisements to the newspapers published in the State of Jammu and Kashmir under any definite policy or uniform guideline as is required under law. It is further held that the respondents have not properly classified the categories of the newspapers including the newspaper of the petitioner. The petitioner is held entitled to the issuance of advertisements after being properly classified in accordance with a definite policy to be formulated in this behalf regarding the distribution of Govt. advertisements to the newspapers in the State. It would be in the interest of the State to alley the doubts created, that a definite policy regarding the distribution of advertisements is adopted and published for the knowledge of the general public. It would be also proper that a specific machinery is provided for ascertaining the exact number of circulation and consequent classification of newspapers being entitled to the share of distribution of advertisements in accordance with the aforesaid policy. It would be proper that if a specific machinery is provided for the purposes of acting upon such definite policy which may be formulated and the State may associate the representatives of the press in that agency, if created. The Government would he well advised to ascertain the newspapers held entitled to advertisements under the policy along with their circulation as determined. Such a determination may he published so that any person having any doubt regarding enlistment of a newspaper or the determination of its circulation in that behalf may be in a position to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum. The respondents are therefore, directed to adopt and circulate a definite policy regarding the distribution of Government advertisements and provide a machinery for its effective implementation within a period of six months and to classify the petitioner in accordance with the said policy consequent upon which the due share of advertisements be issued to him. While formulating the policy for distributing the advertisements the respondents would keep in mind the objective of Government advertisements i.e. to secure widest possible coverage through newspapers which circulate news or comments on current affairs, and standard journals on science, art, literature, sports, films, cultural affairs. While giving advertisements, political affiliations or editorial policies of the publications concerned should not be taken into account, which however would not prevent the State from withholding of enlistment of newspapers and journals who incite or tend to incite communal passions, preach violence, offend the sovereignty and integrity of India or socially accepted norms of public decency and morals or such other reasonable restrictions which are considered by the respondents to be in the interests of the people and the Slate. It is hoped that the respondents would take into account the advertisement policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting while formulating their own policy in this behalf. In selecting publications for the issuance of Government advertisements the following considerations may also be taken into account:
(a) Coverage of readership from different Walks of life particularly in case of national campaigns;
(b) Reading specific sections of people depending upon the message consideration in motivational/educative campaigns;
(c) Any other category of Newspapers/ Journals/Publications which Government may consider from time to time appropriate for bona fide reasons;
(d) House journals, House magazines and souvenirs will not ordinarily be used for Government advertisements.
The respondents may also make a provision for ascertaining the circulation of the newspaper by insisting that such circulation be certified by a chartered accountant or by professional and reputed accountants or Institution or by the authority, which may be appointed in this behalf as indicated hereinabove. The rate structure of Government advertisements should also be worked out by the State or the authority which may be appointed in this behalf in the light of this judgment. The respondents are further directed to strictly comply with the guidelines forming part of the memorandum of submission to the Cabinet referred to hereinabove only for a period of six months. If the directions of the Court are not complied within the period specified, the respondents are restrained from issuing any advertisement to any newspaper in the Slate after that period. The petitioner is also held entitled to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs. 2000. CMP No. 1906/85 is also disposed of.