Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar Singh vs Union Of India on 30 January, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2449/2012
RAKESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 30.01.2013
1. The petitioner before this Court alleges arbitrariness and adoption of
non-transparent methods by various departments and agencies of the
government in holding public competitions for designing of symbols/logos
for them. According to the petitioner, the selection of artists/vendors for
designing such symbols/logos is being done without giving wide publicity
and thereby confining the process of selection to a privileged group of
persons, which results in depriving the other citizens, of participating in such
competitions and thereby contributing in the national life and its
development. The following competitions, according to the petitioner, were
held in a non-transparent and arbitrary manner:
(1) 'Public competitions' held by MoF for Symbol of Indian
Rupee
(2) 'Public Competition' held by Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI), Planning commission, GOI, for
selection of LOGO for UIDAI
(3) Public Competition held by Ministry of Rail, GOI, for
designing of new LOGO for Indian Railways.
(4) 'Competition' for selection if 'I Mark' symbol for Indian
Designs held by Indian council of Design, National Institute
of Designs.
(5) Logo of RTI Act, designed by faculty of National
Institute of Design, at the instance of Union Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, GOI."
The petitioner is accordingly, seeking directions to the respondent to
prepare guidelines to be followed in future for holding all public competitions
concerning the issues of national and public importance.
2. The Union of India, which is the sole respondent in this petition, was
impleaded through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. In a short
affidavit filed by it, the MHA has stated that as per the Allocation of Business
Rules, the subject matter raised by this petition has not been allocated to any
particular Ministry/Department. It is further stated in the reply that the
Ministry of Consumer Food and Public Distribution, Department of
Consumer Affairs administers Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper
Use) Act, 1950 which deals with improper use of certain emblems and names
for professional and commercial purposes and the aforesaid department has
stated that in terms of provisions of Emblems and Names (Prevention of
Improper Use) Act, no instructions regarding issue of guidelines for holding
public competitions for selection of logos can be issued. It is also stated in the
reply that the method of selection/ elimination for the purpose of short-listing
specifications of the competition distinctiveness etc., differ from case to case
and therefore common guidelines for all public competitions are not
necessary. The Ministry of Culture has also filed a short affidavit stating there
that every Ministry/Organisation follows its own methodology for designing
of its logos and many a times internal resources/expertise of the concerned
Ministry/Organisation are used to design such logos so as to save on costs. It
is also stated in the reply that as per the Allocation of Business Rules, the
policy of framing rules in respect of holding such competitions for designing
logos etc., does not come under the purview of the Ministry of Culture and
that the said Ministry has been using an exclusive logo designed for use of it
and its attached subordinate office and autonomous organization.
3. It is thus quite evident that under the Allocation of Business Rules,
framed by the Govt. of India, no particular Ministry is competent to lay down
guidelines to be used by all Ministries and departments of the Government in
the matter of procedure to be adopted for holding public competitions to
design logos/emblems etc., for various Ministries/Departments/attached
offices of the Government or for various public sector undertakings which are
controlled by different departments. Also, a uniform policy may not be
appropriate for all Ministries and Departments of the Government, which
perform different functions. Therefore, if such guidelines are to be framed,
every Ministry/Department of the Government would have to frame its own
guidelines for use of it as well as of its attached subordinate offices as well as
the PSUs controlled by it.
4. It can hardly be disputed that whenever public competitions are held by
a Ministry/Department/Office of the Government or by an autonomous
Body/Undertaking owned or controlled by the Government, they need to
adopt a procedure which is fair, transparent and objective. It would, therefore,
be only appropriate that each Ministry/Department of the Government of
India frames guidelines which are fair, transparent and objective, for being
applied by it or its attached/subordinate offices as well as by the Autonomous
Bodies/Corporations/Companies controlled by it. Framing such guidelines
will not only eliminate arbitrariness and subjectivity which may sometimes
crop up while holding such competitions but they will also give an
opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in such competitions. For this
purpose, it would also be necessary that such events are given due publicity
not only in national English dailies but also in vernacular newspapers
wherever found appropriate, besides being uploaded on the website of the
concerned office/department/organization.
5. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to Union of
India to instruct all its Ministries/Departments to frame guidelines which are
transparent, fair and objective, to be applied by such Ministries/Departments
as well as their attached/subordinate offices and the Autonomous
Bodies/Public Sector Undertakings/Organisations controlled by them. Such
guidelines shall be framed by all Minsitries/Departments of Government of
India within three months from the date of this order.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 30, 2013/'raj'
