The Delhi High Court upheld restrictions on political advertisements in metro trains and stations during the Model Code of Conduct period. The Court observed that metro infrastructure is linked with government identity and such restrictions prevent political association with public institutions.
The Delhi High Court has affirmed directions that prohibit the placement of political advertisements on metro trains and metro stations during the period when the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) is in force. The Court noted that metro infrastructure is closely and uniquely associated with the government, and that the restrictions are designed to prevent political advertisements from being perceived as identified with governmental institutions.
The decision was rendered in a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by advertising agencies. The agencies had challenged Election Commission instructions under which a clause was required to be inserted into advertising contracts prohibiting political advertisements on metro premises during the MCC period.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed:
“ …metro trains/stations are exclusively identified with the government, and as noted by the learned Single Judge, the restrictions put on metro trains/stations are with a view that political advertisements must not be identified with the government.”
Senior Advocate Ashish Mohan appeared for the appellants. Sanjay Vashistha (Standing Counsel) and Advocate Devvrat Yadav represented the respondents.
Background of the dispute
The appellants are advertising agencies that had obtained long-term advertising rights over metro trains, stations, and related infrastructure through contracts awarded by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). These agreements allowed commercial advertisements. The agencies asserted that political advertisements had historically been permitted on commercially authorized sites.
After Election Commission of India instructions relating to political advertisements during MCC, directions were issued requiring DMRC to:
- insert a contractual clause prohibiting political advertisements on leased advertising spaces during the MCC period; and
- remove any existing political advertisements once the MCC came into effect.
The advertising agencies challenged the restriction as arbitrary and discriminatory, and alleged it violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Their case was that political advertisements continued to be allowed at some other public locations, and that the restriction adversely affected their commercial interests.
Observations and reasoning of the High Court
1) Limited duration and scope: The Court first reviewed the approach taken by the learned Single Judge and agreed that the restrictions were time-bound and operated only during the MCC period. It also noted that the agencies could still display all non-political advertisements, and that the restriction applied only to political content during elections.
Agreeing with the Single Judge, the Bench stated:
“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.”
2) Challenge under Article 14: The appellants argued that the Election Commission permitted political advertisements at certain other locations (including bus queue shelters) but barred them on metro premises. The Court rejected the comparison, holding that metro stations and trains fall into a distinct category.
In that context, the Bench accepted the Election Commission’s submission and observed:
“Bus queue shelters are located on public roads, and the advertisement spaces provided in such shelters are similarly placed to the advertisement hoardings on public roads. These do not per se fall within the definition of government buildings. Metro stations/trains and bus queue shelters are therefore entirely distinct, as perceived by the public at large.”
The Court held that the public perception-based distinction between metro infrastructure and bus shelters justified differential treatment. It further emphasized that metro infrastructure is strongly associated in public perception with governmental authorities, and that political messaging there could compromise the neutrality expected during elections.
3) Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g): The Court also rejected the argument that the restriction infringed rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). It reasoned that the directions did not amount to a complete ban on the advertising activity; rather, they restricted only one category of advertisements for a limited period.
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.”
4) Authority under Article 324: The Court held that the Election Commission had the power under Article 324 to issue directions for matters connected with elections even in areas not covered by existing legislation, and that such instructions were binding.
In support of this, the Bench remarked:
“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.”
5) Public interest outweighs commercial interest: Finally, the Court noted that the agencies’ commercial interests could not override the larger public objective of ensuring free and fair elections. It agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge that the agencies’ interest was essentially commercial, while the Election Commission’s directions served the broader purpose of electoral fairness and neutrality.
Conclusion: Finding no merit in the challenge, the Delhi High Court upheld the restrictions on political advertisements on metro trains and stations during the MCC period and dismissed the appeal.
Appearances
Appellants: Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate with Akshit Mago and Auritro Mukherjee
Respondents: Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing Counsel, Advocates Siddhartha Goswami, Krish Bhatia and Aditya Sachdeva, Devvrat Yadav, Tarun Johri, Ankur Gupta and Vishwajeet Tyagi
Case Title: M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors 2026:DHC:5140-DB
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE