Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Unnamed Judge, J
RAJ J.R. – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of visual appeal in tourism. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. impact of illegal boards on aesthetics and public safety. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's commitment to address visual pollution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal framework and governmental duties outlined. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. government accountability measures put in place. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. implementation challenges and required actions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. court orders to enforce removal of unauthorized installations. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. recognition of improved state and appreciation of efforts. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT
Rarely, if not ever, has 'Visual Pollution' and “Destination Aesthetics”– so vital to tourism – seriously, if not at all, engaged the attention of the Authorities in Kerala. These concepts are widely used to describe the compounded effects of disorder, excess and clutter of various objects and graphics in the landscape; and the inevitable corollary of lack of visual appeal and aesthetics.
2. While many parts of the World have awoken to the pernicious effects of “Visual Pollution” - which, in its
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
