Recently, the Delhi High Court upheld a bar on political advertisements at metro stations and inside metro trains while the Model Code of Conduct is in force, finding that such spaces are closely associated with the government and cannot be used in a manner that suggests State backing for political messaging. The Court rejected a challenge by advertising agencies to Election Commission directions requiring the removal of political advertisements from leased metro spaces during elections, holding that the measure was narrowly limited in duration and served the larger objective of maintaining a fair electoral environment.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from long-term advertising licences granted for the display of advertisements on metro trains, stations and related infrastructure. Although political advertisements had earlier been permitted at commercially authorised sites subject to the Model Code of Conduct, complaints over political content displayed on metro premises during an election led the Election Commission to direct the insertion of a clause prohibiting such advertisements during the MCC and requiring their removal once it came into force. The advertising agencies, which claimed to have factored election-period revenue into their 10 year licences, challenged the direction in a writ petition; after its dismissal, they approached the Division Bench through a Letters Patent Appeal, alleging violations of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Appellants:
Counsel for the appellants argued that the restriction was arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution, as political advertisements remained permissible at bus queue shelters and other authorised public sites, with no intelligible basis to distinguish them from metro premises. Invoking Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), they submitted that executive directions lacking statutory force could not restrict speech or business, and that the clause had been unilaterally inserted into licences for which they had factored in election-period advertising revenue.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Counsel for the Election Commission submitted that the directions were issued under Article 324 of the Constitution to maintain a level playing field during elections. The respondent argued that the restriction applied only during the MCC and permitted all non-political advertisements. The respondents further contended that metro premises, being government-linked infrastructure, were distinct from roadside bus shelters, and that any dispute over the licence terms was contractual and subject to arbitration.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed, “metro trains/stations are exclusively identified with the government,” and noted that the restriction was intended to ensure that political advertisements displayed on such premises were not perceived as being associated with the State. The Bench agreed that metro infrastructure and bus queue shelters could not be treated as comparable spaces, as the latter are located on public roads and are akin to roadside hoardings.
Further, the Court held, “the restrictions are not unreasonable keeping in view the object sought to be achieved by the impugned directions, i.e., free, fair and transparent elections.” It noted that the prohibition was confined to the period during which the Model Code of Conduct remained in force and did not bar the agencies from displaying advertisements that were non-political in nature.
Moreover, the Bench observed, “Ban on display of political advertisements, that too for a limited time, does not mean that the Appellants have been restricted from displaying any advertisements.” It therefore rejected the challenge under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, holding that the restriction did not amount to a complete restraint on the appellants’ advertising business.
Finally, the Court noted, “the submission that the instructions and impugned letters having been issued by the Respondent No. 1 in exercise of the power under Article 324 of the Constitution, shall have the force of law and are binding, is appealing.” It held that the Election Commission could issue such directions in the absence of legislation governing political advertisements during elections, particularly where the object was to preserve a level playing field.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the appeal, declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision, and disposed of the pending applications as infructuous.
Case Title: M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
Case No.: LPA 16/2020
Coram: Hon’ble Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocates for Appellants: Sr. Adv. Ashish Mohan, Adv. Akshit Mago, Adv. Auritro Mukherjee
Advocates for Election Commission of India: Standing Counsel Sanjay Vashishtha, Adv. Siddhartha Goswami, Adv. Krish Bhatia, Adv. Aditya Sachdeva, Adv. Devvrat Yadav, Adv. Tarun Johri, Adv. Ankur Gupta, Adv. Vishwajeet Tyagi
Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :