, Chief Justice G.Rohini stated in her Judgment.
Disposing of the remaining writ petitions, the Bench stated that the petitioners in other writ petitions can file complaints before the Committee which shall be considered in terms of the Guidelines.
As regard to the issue raised whether Delhi Government’s advertisements would also be monitored by committee appointed by the Union of India, The Court without dwelling into it directed the said committee to deliberate on the matter.
The said guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court in Common Cause vs. Union of India acknowledging the need to regulate any such transgressions. These provided for formation of a 3-member committee (empanelling persons with impeccable record of neutrality) having jurisdiction over (a) Ministries/Departments of Government of India and Union Territory Administrations; (b) Public Sector Undertakings of Government of India; and (c) Local bodies and other autonomous bodies / organizations established under a Statute by Government of India / Union Territory Administrations. The state governments were directed to constitute their respective committees in compliance of Supreme Court orders or be regulated by that of the centre for regulation of such unethical practices.
Political parties have often been accused of unethical and unwanted expenditure in propaganda. The thin line between advertisements of government policies and party propaganda often gets violated. The committee’s decision will not only have far reaching effects on AAP government’s political ambitions but is also likely to prove to be a bulwark against unethical political campaigns.
Read the Judgment here.
Topics: AAP Government Ajay Maken vs Arvind Kejriwal Delhi High Court Government Advertisement
Related Posts
View the Original article
it is for the experts to verify whether the languages satisfy the norms and recommend for the declaration. Having satisfied, they have recommended for the declaration of the languages in consideration to be 
whether a term of the NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty. However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.
The reason assigned by the Family Court that parties have not assigned the reasons clearly for not being able to live together is of no relevance at all in a matter like this. It is not for the Court to probe into such reasons and decide as to whether parties were justified in living separately. That is not the scope of a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act
If the application is not allowed it would affect definitely public exchequer thereby the appellant Corporation will be deprived of huge money, if they are successful so far as their stand before this Court. Time and again the Apex Court of this Country has said certain amount of latitude no doubt is always expected from this bureaucratic approach of the officers since they work in an impersonal bureaucratic set up but how long this would continue. In spite of constituting legal cells to examine the matter and to take final call on the matter huge delay is being caused. No doubt, the very nature of foundation of governmental machinery requires serious re-look into the matter. However, one cannot forget that pragmatic approach should be there in justice oriented process. At one blush one cannot totally reject the very claim of the appellants as explained in the memorandum of appeal. Though there cannot be separate standards to determine 
It is also important to note that accused has not run away after committing the murders of his wife and two minor daughters. He made a phone call to Police Patil of the village and requested him to call the police by telling him that he would like to surrender before the police. After making the phone call, he kept himself locked inside the premises. Only after the police came, he opened the door and surrendered before the police. It has come on record that when they found Police Patil and other villagers reached outside the house then found him reading the religious book.
procrastination is the greatest thief of time’ and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
Legal Chronicles 