STATE OF KARNATAKA v. COMMON CAUSE AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Ranjan Gogoi
- Pinaki Chandra Grose
- Judgment Date
- 2016-03-18
- Court Decision / Holding
- The review petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- State of Karnataka
Respondents
- Common Cause and others
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Mukul Rohatgi
- • Madhu Sudan Naik
- • C. D. Singh
- • Krishna Sarma
- • S. S. Shamshery
- • T. R. Andhiyarujina
- • Kailash Vasdev
- • Kapil Sibal
- • Rakesh Dwivedi
- • Dinesh Dwivedi
- • Gopal Jain
- • Vikas Singh
- • Subramanium Prasad
- • Sr. Adv.
- • Joseph Aristotle S.
- • Mrs. Priya Aristotle
- • M. B. Elakkumanan
- • Soumitra G. Chaudhuri
- • Umrao Singh Rawat
- • Parijat Sinha
- • Ms. Meenakshi Shanna
- • Navnit Kumar
- • Ms. Bamali Das
- • Ms. Vartika Walia
- • M. Yogesh Kanna
- • Jayant Patel
- • Prateek Dwivedi
- • Krishan Mishra
- • Yasharth Kant
- • Abhisth Kumar
- • Manish S. Srivastava
- • Nishant Singh
- • Abhishek Kumar Singh
- • Sanjeeb Panigrahi
- • Stephanie Sonanane
- • Prajnashree Purohit
- • Prashant Bhushan
- • Rohit Kumar Singh
- • O. Kuttan
- • Ramesh K. Mishra
- • Meera Bhatia
- • Balraj Dewan
- • Vinita
- • M. M. Kashyap
- • Shalinder Saini
- • D.S. Mahra
- • Madhavi Divan
- • Nidhi Khanna
- • Shreekant N. Terdal
- • Sandeepan Pathak
- • Saumya Kalra
- • Shashi Juneja
- • K. V. Mohan
- • V. Tiwari
- • Siddhartha Dave
- • Chirag M. Shroff
- • Rohit Kumar
- • Siddharth Bhatnagar
- • Sidharth Mohan
- • Garima Tiwari
- • Nirnimesh Dube
- • Amit Sharma
- • S. Spandana Reddy
- • Ishu Prayas
- • Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
- • Ruchi Kohli
- • Aman Panwar
- • Mudit Gupta
- • L. R. Singh
- • Adv. for the appearing parties
Counsels for Respondents
- • Common Cause and Others
Case Synopsis & Summary
State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and Ors concerns a public interest litigation about government advertisements and the publication of photographs of public officials. The Supreme Court's 2015 judgment allowed the use of official portraits of the President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice in government campaigns, with the heads of the state to resolve some questions. In this batch of review petitions, the Court re-examines the scope of those directions. After hearing counsels for all sides, the Court decides to extend the permission to include Governors and Chief Ministers of the States; and to permit, in lieu of the Prime Minister's photograph, the image of the Departmental (Cabinet) Minister in charge of the relevant Ministry, if so desired. Similarly, in the states, the photograph of the Departmental Minister in charge may be published instead of the Chief Minister, should the authorities wish. All other observations and directions in the May 13, 2015 judgment remain in force subject to these modifications. The Court's order clarifies the policy for government advertising while maintaining essential limits on propaganda. The review petitions are disposed of in terms consistent with these modifications, with the matter closed by the Court’s order.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The State of Karnataka contends that the Court’s 2015 directive on government advertisements and the publication of portraits of constitutional and high offices should be clarified and extended to reflect the practical governance context. The applicants seek wider permission for public dissemination of official portraits, arguing that such publication informs the citizenry, fosters accountability, and supports transparent governance. They also urge that where necessary, portraits of senior departmental ministers may serve as substitutes for office-holders in certain campaigns, subject to appropriate safeguards and guidelines. The aim is a balanced framework that respects constitutional offices while enabling effective public communication.
Contentions of Respondents
Common Cause and other petitioners argue for cautious use of official portraits in government advertisements, emphasizing the need to avoid propaganda and maintain propriety. They contend that any relaxation should be tightly tethered to objective public interest criteria and subject to strict controls to prevent misuse or politicization of government messaging. They also challenge the breadth of the relaxation in the 2015 order and call for clear limitations and uniform standards across states.
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against STATE OF KARNATAKA v. COMMON CAUSE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.