In recent years, India’s political landscape has increasingly blurred the lines between governance and marketing. From metro station hoardings to YouTube pre-roll ads, the image of the Prime Minister has become synonymous with government achievements. While publicity is a key aspect of political communication in any democracy, the scale, tone, and funding of India’s current publicity ecosystem raise fundamental questions: Who pays for this image-building? And at what cost to fiscal prudence and democratic accountability?
Understanding the Fiscal Deficit
At its core, the fiscal deficit measures the gap between a government’s total expenditure and its total revenue (excluding borrowings). When the deficit widens, it means the state is spending more than it earns—often financed through borrowing or diverting funds from other essential sectors.
India’s fiscal deficit has remained a concern for decades, hovering around 5.6% of GDP in the Union Budget 2025 projections. For FY24–25, the revised estimate stood at 4.8% of GDP, with a budget target of 4.4% for FY25–26. This figure signals the government’s continued struggle to balance welfare spending, infrastructure investment, and populist initiatives, all while managing limited tax revenues.
While certain forms of spending—like capital expenditure on infrastructure—can stimulate economic growth, others, such as excessive publicity campaigns, offer minimal tangible returns. This brings us to the heart of the issue: the politics of publicity.
The Cult of Visibility
Public communication of government programs is not inherently problematic. Citizens deserve to know about new schemes and initiatives. However, the personalization of such communication—where the Prime Minister’s face eclipses institutional identity—marks a distinct shift from information to branding.
Government advertisements across platforms often feature the PM’s portrait prominently, even for schemes implemented by state governments, public sector undertakings, or independent agencies. This approach turns what should be neutral, taxpayer-funded information campaigns into tools of political self-promotion.
In 2023–24, reports estimated that central government advertising and publicity expenditure exceeded ₹3,000 crore, not including the parallel ecosystem of social media amplification, influencer outreach, and surrogate PR. Media reports pegged the “Information & Publicity” spend at ₹1,228 crore for 2023–24, with ₹1,210.8 crore budgeted for 2025–26. Between 2014–15 and 2022–23, the Central Bureau of Communication spent approximately ₹3,755 crore on print, television, and digital advertisements. Much of this spending occurs even as allocations for education, healthcare, and rural employment schemes face budgetary constraints.
The Political Economy of Publicity
The expansion of publicity spending reflects a deeper political logic. In a media environment dominated by visual imagery and social media narratives, political capital is increasingly tied to visibility. The state’s publicity apparatus thus serves two interlinked purposes:
- Agenda Control: By saturating public spaces with curated messages, the government frames national discourse, pushing alternative narratives or critiques to the margins.
- Electoral Leverage: The consistent visibility of the leader’s image reinforces personality-driven politics, where governance becomes synonymous with the leader’s personal brand.
This conflation of public office and personal image undermines institutional accountability. The message shifts from “the government has achieved X” to “the leader has given you X,” erasing the collective role of bureaucracy, civil society, and taxpayers themselves.
A 2019 Lokniti-CSDS survey indicated that nearly 70% of Indians associate government schemes with the image of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, rather than the department or institution.
India: The Controversy Over Faces in State Ads
In India, government publicity campaigns often feature images of political leaders. But is it appropriate or constitutional to use taxpayer money to promote individuals rather than institutions?
In 2015, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling to restrict government ads from carrying photos of political leaders ( well , in a broad sense). The rationale was to prevent fostering a personality cult and to ensure that public funds served public interest, not personal glorification. The Court also laid down content guidelines for objectivity, neutrality, cost-effectiveness, and non-partisan tone.
However, the decision was controversial, especially among state governments, which argued that it undermined federal equality and prevented ministers from taking credit for work in their portfolios. Several state governments and the Union government filed review petitions, emphasizing federal balance, the right to communicate, and practical considerations for ministry-specific schemes.
In March 2016, the Supreme Court, in a bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, modified its earlier restrictions. The new ruling extended photo permissions to include Governors and Ministers at Centre and the States ( the Indian federal structure). The Court preserved controls on partisan content but effectively opened the door for more leader-centric publicity.
This modification marked a shift from a stricter anti-personality-cult stance to a more permissive path, reflecting tensions between constitutional goals and executive demands. In practice, it has enabled routine inclusion of leaders’ faces in campaigns, diluting the original intent and raising concerns about weak enforcement and ambiguous boundaries.
A recent example underscores this trend: giant billboards in Mumbai featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, celebrating diplomatic ties. Such displays prompt questions about funding and whether they serve goodwill or taxpayer-funded publicity.
The Hidden Cost: Fiscal Ethics and Democratic Health
While the fiscal cost of publicity campaigns may seem modest relative to total government expenditure, the opportunity cost is significant. Every crore spent on self-congratulatory advertising is a crore not spent on anganwadis, primary health centers, or skill development programs. Between 2020–21 and 2023–24, the Central government spent ₹1,458 crore on multimedia publicity, while states cumulatively crossed ₹7,000 crore—more than the combined annual budget for mid-day meal programs in several smaller states.
Moreover, the blurred boundary between party and government messaging corrodes democratic norms. Taxpayer-funded advertising should inform, not indoctrinate. Yet, when such campaigns resemble election propaganda, the line between state and party is effectively erased—a problem the Supreme Court has acknowledged in its directives.
Cross-Country Lens on the Politics of Publicity
India’s approach to government advertising stands out for its permissiveness compared to other democracies. Here’s a comparative overview:
| Country | Latest central deficit signal | Can leaders’ faces/names appear in taxpayer-funded ads? | Oversight / blackout rules | Recent central ad spend signal |
| India | FY24–25 RE 4.8% of GDP; FY25–26 Budget target 4.4%. (Press Information Bureau) | Yes (after SC modification): 2015 SC order limited photos (President/PM/CJI), but 2016 SC allowed CMs, Governors, and Ministers in govt ads. (FACTLY) | Central publicity handled via MIB/Central Bureau of Communication; broader ad self-declaration regime for legality since 2024. (India Budget) | Media report: ₹1,228 cr on “Information & Publicity” in 2023–24; ₹1,210.8 cr budgeted for 2025–26. (Storyboard18) |
| United Kingdom | OBR forecasts 4.8% of GDP borrowing in 2024–25; ONS monthly data track elevated borrowing in 2025. (Office for Budget Responsibility) | No blanket photo ban, but Propriety Guidance requires impartial, non-party communications; during elections, strict pre-election (“purdah”) restrictions. (communications.gov.uk) | Government Communication Service propriety rules; local/central bodies observe purdah (no content that could influence voters). (communications.gov.uk) | No single “total” published routinely; example: GREAT tourism campaign budget cut to £10.6m (2025–26). (Financial Times) |
| United States (federal) | $1.8 trillion deficit in FY2025 (CBO est.). (cbo.gov) | Strict prohibitions on “publicity or propaganda,” covert propaganda, and self-aggrandizement (GAO). Not an explicit face ban, but puffery/partisan tone can violate rules. (Government Accountability Office) | Multiple watchdogs: GAO opinions, appropriations riders; Hatch-Act-adjacent norms for civil servants. (Government Accountability Office) | No consolidated “government advertising” total; spend diffuse across agencies and campaigns. (Rules above govern content.) (Government Accountability Office) |
| Canada (federal) | FY24–25 deficit projected C$48.3 bn (~1.6% of GDP). (TD Economics) | Explicit ban: federal ads may not include the name, image, or voice of the Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, or Senators; must be non-partisan. (Canada.ca) | Treasury Board non-partisan criteria; annual public report of ad activity & spend. (Canada.ca) | C$76.38 m (2023–24) across 44 institutions; 64% digital. (Canada.ca) |
| Australia (Commonwealth) | MYEFO 2024–25 shows deterioration in underlying cash balance vs Budget; 2023–24 posted a small surplus. (budget.gov.au) | Ads must be objective, non-party-political; Independent Communications Committee (ICC) reviews major campaigns; exemptions possible in urgency/emergencies. (finance.gov.au) | ANAO audits; ICC advisories; some bodies (e.g., AEC) are exempt but follow their own rules. (anao.gov.au) | Central total varies by year; framework and audits are public (see ANAO reviews). (anao.gov.au) |
Key insights from this comparison:
- Personalization Tolerance Varies Widely: Canada is the strictest with no leader names/images/voices. India permits them post-2016, which is unusual among major democracies.
- Oversight Models Differ: Canada pairs rules with annual reports; the UK and Australia use guidance and audits; the US focuses on ex-post checks.
- Publicity Spend vs. Fiscal Space: India’s high deficit coexists with significant ad spending, highlighting opportunity costs. Canada’s lower deficit correlates with modest outlays and tight rules.
- Pre-Election Conduct Matters: The UK’s purdah and Australia’s norms prevent state communications from becoming campaign material—a challenge India faces with normalized leader imagery.
Toward a More Accountable Communication Policy
To restore fiscal discipline and democratic fairness, India must enforce clearer guidelines on government communication. Possible reforms include:
- Independent Oversight: Establish a statutory body to audit and regulate all government advertising expenditures.
- Institutional Branding: Restrict the use of individual leaders’ images in taxpayer-funded communication.
- Transparency Portals: Mandate quarterly public disclosure of all government publicity spending, broken down by ministry and media category.
- Digital Ethics: Enforce parity rules for social media promotions to prevent algorithmic manipulation of public perception using public funds.
Beyond the Billboard State
Fiscal discipline is not just a matter of economics—it is a test of governance ethics. A democracy that invests more in selling governance than in delivering it risks hollowing out the public trust that sustains it. In India’s evolving democracy, the challenge is not just to reduce the fiscal deficit, but to confront the deeper credibility deficit created when politics becomes indistinguishable from publicity.
The 2016 Supreme Court verdict stands as a watershed, legitimizing leader-centric branding while underscoring the need for stronger safeguards. As faces of power dominate billboards and screens, the true cost extends beyond budgets to the very fabric of democratic accountability.
Leave a Reply