DMK challenges refusal to pre-certify poll advertisements

The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has approached the Madras High Court challenging the orders passed by a committee, headed by the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO), on April 4, refusing to grant precertification for some of the posters, videos, and audio recordings planned to be used by the party during the ongoing campaign for the April 19 Lok Sabha election.

The three writ petitions, filed by the party against the rejection orders, have been listed for admission before the First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad on Monday.

The party has insisted upon quashing the rejection orders and consequently issuing a direction to grant precertification for the campaign materials.

In three identical affidavits, filed through his counsel S. Manuraj, DMK organisation secretary R.S. Bharathi said the Election Commission of India had on August 24, 2023, issued guidelines for regulating the advertisements by political parties. According to the guidelines, a StateLevel Certification Committee (SLCC), headed by an Additional/Joint CEO, must precertify the advertisements.

Since the DMK had been issuing advertisements under the Tamil title, ‘Indiyavai Kaaka Stalin Azhaikkiren’, meaning Stalin calls

A committee headed by Chief Electoral Officer Satyabrata Sahoo had refused to grant precertification for the political advertisements on April 4

you to protect India, it had submitted some of them for precertification.

However, the SLCC, led by a Joint CEO, rejected precertification in March this year and the rejection orders were also upheld by a StateLevel Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC), led by the CEO.

The rejection orders were based on the provisions which prohibit advertisements that are likely to promote enmity on grounds of religion, race, language, caste or community, those that cast aspersions on the integrity of the President or the judiciary and those which criticise other parties or their workers on the basis of unverified allegations or by distorting the facts.

The party contended that the rejection orders had been passed mechanically without any application of mind and with an inordinate delay.

It said the CEO had not given any specific reason for rejecting the appeals filed by the party against the precertification rejection orders and therefore, it amounted to a colourable exercise of power conferred upon the executive authority.