Delhi residents need permission to put up political posters: HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court said Thursday that residents can put up political posters at their homes but with prior permission from authorities.

A division bench of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S Endlaw said putting up of posters, billboards, banners or hoardings, if left unregulated, would become an "eyesore and a public nuisance" as it upheld the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property (DPDP) Act which was used by the then Congress government in 2013 to restrain people from putting up Aam Aadmi Party posters at their homes.

The court said people who are willing to put posters would require prior permission from the city's civic bodies, just like requirement of taking permission for protests, rallies, and processions.

"We accordingly hold that the Defacement Act does not absolutely prohibit putting up of political posters/banners on private properties and that for putting up of political posters/banners, requisite permission under the municipal and other applicable laws has to be obtained.

However without such permission, such posters cannot be put up on one's own private property also," the court said.

It also direct the the municipal corporations, if they do not already have a policy for granting permission for political advertisements, to frame such policy within three months.

The court's order came on plea filed by the AAP and its two supporters against the then government decision.

The bench also rejected AAP's contention that banning people from putting posters would be denial of the right to freedom of speech, and said the arguments that one has absolute freedom to do anything on one's own property is clearly "fallacious".

"We are also of the opinion that no parallel can be drawn by the petitioners with the freedom of speech. Unlike oral speech, signs/hoardings/posters take up space, obstruct view, distract motorists, displace alternative uses for land, are a source of litter and all of which legitimately call for regulation.

"It is also not as if there are no frontiers to freedom of speech. Free speech also, inter alia does not sanction intrusion into rights of others," said the court.

It also added: "If that were to be allowed, there would be no need for town planning and all towns/cities would become slums, having haphazard growth, with each constructing on his property in the manner he may like.

"It is for this reason only that the municipal laws of all states/cities provide for the layout plans of each colony to be sanctioned by the appropriate/municipal authorities and while sanctioning which various parameters including of aesthetics are taken into consideration."

Proliferation of an unlimited number of posters in private, residential, commercial and industrial areas of the city would "create ugliness, visual blight and clutter, tarnish the residential and commercial architecture, impair property values and impinge upon the privacy and special ambience of the community", the bench held as it dismissed the plea.

In its plea, the AAP had asked the court to pass an order to restrain police and the MCD from removing posters from houses as elections were due soon and it had to begin its campaign.

The Election Commission had also objected to the AAP's contentions.