A fair advertisement is a contradiction in terms, it is in the nature of advertisements to be unfair. So the Election Commission’s instruction to the information and broadcasting ministry to take “appropriate action” against “unfair” political advertisements on television raises certain basic questions. There was clarity enough in the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act, 1995. It unequivocally prohibited advertisements of political and religious import in electronic media. It is also clear that the act has never been complied with to the letter, and even the EC’s recent discomfort with political advertisements on TV has not discouraged either political parties or cable TV operators. The revenue from political advertisements is not to be sniffed at. The Andhra Pradesh high court struck down the rule against political advertisements on TV, saying that such a rule was discriminatory and violative of the right to trade and business. The confusion stems from a conflict between two value-schemes, the right to trade and business pitted against “fair” campaigning methods. One, paying commercial channels money in order to advertise the virtues and achievements of a political party would mean advantage for the rich parties and disadvantage for the poorer. Besides, it would make far more difficult the monitoring of election expenses of each party, something that the EC has been pushing for, in order to destroy the close links of politics with the criminal world.

The EC’s order is against “unfair” advertisements. It is reacting to complaints from the Congress that the opposition was using “slanderous” advertisements to make its point. Evidently, part of the problem lies with references to Ms Sonia Gandhi’s non-Indian origin. Whatever be the case, the EC’s objection is to advertisements that violate “good taste and decency”. But Ms Gandhi has faced worse from her colleagues in opposition. It is not the job of either the information and broadcasting ministry or of the EC to protect any political leader, whoever it may be, from the mud flung at him by opposition parties. The level of taste and lack of “decency” — both extremely subjective criteria in any case — would depend entirely on the political climate at any given moment, on the composition of the political class, and the quality and sharpness of the fight. Prohibiting one kind of advertisement while allowing others forces the government into an anomalous position, which is in no way improved by the rule that gives it the power to “regulate” or prohibit “offensive” advertisements. Political parties never tell the truth, nor do advertisements. The EC might think of framing its objections on other grounds altogether.