Centre opposes in Supreme Court plea for appointment of ombudsman to regulate misuse of public money by governments in giving advertisements to gain political mileage; says it would amount to "pre-censorship"

The Union Government on Tuesday opposed in the Supreme Court the framing of guidelines on regulating its advertisements, saying this did not fall under the ambit of judicial review as an elected dispensation was answerable to Parliament.

The government also advanced the argument as to how the court could decide which of the advertisement has been issued to gain political mileage.

 

File Picture : Mukul Rohatgi

Attorney General of India (AG) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, said, "these are matters which should be left to the government and are outside the purview of the courts. The government communicates to the public at large through these advertisements on policy and other matters."

He was opposing to the submissions of Prashant Bhushan, who representing the petitioner had contended that there should be an ombudsman to regulate misuse of public money by the government of the day by giving advertisements to gain political mileage.

"The government expenditure is subject to whole lot of parliamentary procedures and each penny is accounted for and is subject to the audit of the CAG. This is not a case akin to the Visakha case where the courts can step in," Mr. Rohatgi said.

Giving several instances, he said it would amount to "pre-censorship" as it is difficult to judge which of the advertisement is being given to gain political mileage. "Today, we have the swine flu campaign going on across the country. Do we suggest that these advertisements should not contain the pictures of the health minister or health secretary etc. It cannot be said this (advertisement) is given with malafide intention," he said, adding that every government department was entitled by Parliament to spend a particular amount under a particular head.

"The government expenditure is subject to whole lot of parliamentary procedures and each penny is accounted for and is subject to the audit of the CAG. This is not a case akin to the Visakha case where the courts can step in." 

"On what basis, you will decide that it is malafide and is being given to gain political mileage. Ultimately, the government is answerable to Parliament," Mr. Rohatgi asked.

A Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, which reserved its verdict on various pleas on the issue, said it would consider submissions of all parties concerned including the Union Government.

Attorney General recommends repeal of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996

Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, in a legal opinion to the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, has recommended the repeal of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and mooted a new law in tune with the Union Government’s larger push to provide a business-friendly environment for foreign investors.

(File photo: Mukul Rohatgi)

The Attorney General had tendered his legal opinion on the subject after the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India had specifically sought his views of the same. In his legal opinion, AG, Mukul Rohatgi has advised the Government to replace the present law with a new one stressing timely settlement of business disputes and fixing greater onus on arbitrators against delay.

To strengthen the arbitration mechanism framework, the AG has suggested to the Government, the introduction of  statutory measures like a “strict” time limit of probably six months for giving the arbitration award in a dispute. The AG also recommended the imposition of penalty on arbitrators who delay matters.

Mr. Rohatgi has further suggested a ceiling for arbitration fee and expenses. In case of challenge to an arbitration award, a provision should be introduced in the statute, whereby a stay is granted after hearing both parties. 

 

The AG's legal opinion on repeal of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which has been on the statute books for 18 years now, comes close on the heels of the Union Law Minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda's Law Day speech at the Supreme Court, wherein he had said that changing the 1996 law was a top priority for the government’s ‘Make in India’ policy to attract foreign investments.