Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
M/S EG Communications Pvt Ltd & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Election Commission Of India & Ors. – Respondents
LPA 16 of 2020 CM APPLs. 1359 of 2020, 21664 of 2024, 26156 of 2024, 502 of 2025, 1924 of 2025
Decided On : 19-06-2026
For the Appellants :Mr.Ashish Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshit Mago and Mr Auritro Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, SC with Mr Siddhartha Goswami, Mr Krish Bhatia, Mr Aditya Sachdeva, Advocates, Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet Tyagi Advocates.
Constitutional powers granted to electoral authorities to ensure free and fair elections are plenary and permit reasonable, time-bound restrictions on political advertisements in public premises, even if they impact private commercial agreements, provided such directives serve the public interest of maintaining an electoral level playing field.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental rights - Freedom to carry on trade and speech - Restriction on political advertisements on public premises during election period - Whether such directive violates commercial rights under the constitution - Held, regulatory authority possesses plenary powers to issue binding directions for ensuring free and fair elections, which constitutes a valid exercise of authority and does not amount to an unconstitutional prohibition on business activity. (Paras 33, 45, 46)
(B) Administrative Law - Scope of judicial review - Policy directives in public interest - Balance between private commercial interests of contractors and larger public interest of maintaining electoral purity - Held, courts should not interfere with directives aimed at ensuring a level playing field unless found to be arbitrary or perverse. (Paras 41, 49)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, having obtained long-term rights to display advertisements on public transport infrastructure, challenged a directive requiring the exclusion of political content during the operation of a code of conduct for elections. They contended that this action was a unilateral modification of their license agreements and infringed upon their rights to conduct business and exercise freedom of speech.
Findings of Court:
The directive issued by the regulatory authority is a valid exercise of constitutional powers intended to uphold the integrity of the electoral process. The restriction is narrow, temporary, and does not negate the overall commercial viability of the contracts, as non-political advertisements remain permissible.
Issues: Whether the directive violates fundamental rights pertaining to the freedom of trade and speech, and whether the incorporation of such restrictive clauses into existing agreements constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power.
Ratio Decidendi: Preserving a level playing field during the electoral process is a significant public interest that outweighs private commercial expectations. The exercise of plenary powers by the electoral authority to ensure fair elections justifies reasonable, temporary limitations on commercial activities on public-owned property.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of dmrc advertising contracts and eci guidelines on mcc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. chronology of eci directions to mandate removal of political advertisements in dmrc assets. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. appellants' argument regarding article 14 discrimination and article 19(1)(g) infringement. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 4. respondents' justification based on eci's plenary powers under article 324 and contractual obligations. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. court holds eci guidelines valid and rejects claims of fundamental rights violation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12073/2019 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants.
2. At the outset, we may narrate a brief factual background of the controversy as laid out in the appeal. The Appellants are companies registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and pursuant to some tenders issued by the Respondent No. 3/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) from time to time for grant of advertising rights in the DMRC, the Appellants bid for and were awarded contracts for advertising on metro trains on various lines for different types of advertisement, i.e., inside trains, outside trains, outside civil structures, etc. On 07.10.2008, vide communication bearing No. 3/7/2008/JS-II, the Respondent No.1/Election Commission of India revised the guidelines and instructions pertaining to the prevention of defacement of property and other campaign-related items. The Respondent No.1 circulated a comprehensive set of guidelines with respect to defacement of property which, inter alia, stated as under:
“4 (c) If there is specifically earmarked place provided for displaying advertisement in a public place, e.g. bill boards, hoardings etc. and if such space is already let out to any agency for further allocation to individual clients, the District Election Officer through the equitable opportunity to have access to such advertisement space for election related advertisements during the election period.”
3. By way of memorandum dated 15.10.2013, the Respondent No. 3, on the basis of the revised guidelines, clarified the position as regards advertisement rights of political parties on commercially authorized sites and stated as under:
“It is clarified that while the Delhi Prevention of Defacement Act stipulates that no defacement of Public or private property (in public view) shall be allowed, there is no ban on political party putting up their advertisements on commercially authorised sites. Instructions may be issued to all the field functionaries including Flying Squads, SHOs etc. that advertisement material from such authorised sites may not be removed.”
4. The Respondent No.3, on the basis of the aforesaid memorandum dated 15.10.2013 and upon a query raised by the Appellant No.1, vide letter bearing No. CEO/MCC/102(7)Pt.1/2013/739 dated 31.10.2013, had clarified as under:
“With reference to your letter dated 29.10.2013, on the subject cited above, it is informed that this office has already issued a Memorandum dated 15.10.2013 (copy enclosed) wherein, it has been clarified that there is no ban on political party putting up their advertisements on commercially authorised sites”
5. The Respondent No.2/ Chief Electoral Officer, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vide memorandum bearing No. F.CEO/MCC/Misc/108-12 dated 23.03.2019, while relying upon paragraph 4(c) of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), further fortified its stand by clarifying that political parties have the right to advertise at commercially authorized sites. Further, to ensure that no other provision of the MCC was violated, it was stated that political parties may, however, be as
