(New Delhi, May 14): The Supreme Court has stayed Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s circular against the media over the publication of ‘defamatory’ news against the city government.

The apex court has also questioned Kejriwal’s stand on the issue and has given him six weeks time to respond.

On Saturday, the 10th of May 2015, Kejriwal had urged officials working with the Delhi Government to lodge complaints against ‘defamatory’ news items which ‘damage the reputation’ of the government with the Principal Secretary of the home department.

(New Delhi ,13 May): The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, the 13th of May 2015,  that only photographs of the President, Prime Minister and that of the Chief Justice of India should feature in government advertisements henceforth.

Even the pictures of these three dignitaries should be used only with their approval, the apex court said.

The court also allowed the use of pictures of late leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, reports said.

The new guidelines framed by the court banned the use of photos of chief ministers, bureaucrats and political leaders in newspaper advertisements released by state and central government departments.

The top court was of the view that such advertisements have the potential of creating personality cults.

A bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi also asked the central government to constitute a three-member committee to regulate the issue of public advertisement.

The judgement was issued in response to a petition filed by lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan, who sought strict rules to check the misuse of taxpayers’ money by those in power.

“All those state governments which have put up ads and hoardings at the taxpayers’ expense with photos of chief ministers and party leaders will now have to pull them down,” Bhushan told reporters after the verdict.

The apex court accepted all major recommendations made by a committee on regulation of government advertisements.

It rejected the plea of the central government that judiciary should not intervene in policy decisions and said that the courts can step in if there is no policy or law in place.