In a rebuke to political parties for flouting court orders, the Bombay High Court on Thursday issued contempt notices to more than 25 parties in connection with the rampant display of illegal hoardings and banners in public spaces.
The contempt action was triggered during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the proliferation of unauthorised posters, particularly following the recent Maharashtra Assembly elections.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar expressed its outrage after photographs were presented in court showing illegal hoardings placed right outside the High Court.
“What can be more horrendous than this? Despite our judgment directing strict action against illegal hoardings, see where we are headed to. This is a very, very sad situation,” the bench remarked.
The court’s displeasure was further fuelled by the sight of the damage caused to roads and the defacement of the High Court and the adjoining City Civil Court buildings due to these illegal displays.
The bench took a stern view of the situation, pointing out that the person responsible for the hoarding had displayed their name on it, yet no action had been taken against them.
Referring to the lack of effective enforcement, the court raised concerns with the Mumbai civic authorities, questioning why the hoardings were allowed to be erected in the first place.
“We are not denying that you are making efforts, but your efforts are inadequate,” the bench told the authorities.
It also highlighted the negative environmental impact of such illegal posters, which often contribute to plastic waste that poses a threat to local wildlife, especially cows, which ingest discarded plastic.
The bench reminded the authorities that political parties had previously submitted undertakings in court, assuring that they would refrain from putting up illegal banners and hoardings.
“The court had in its earlier orders taken on record the undertakings given by the political parties. However, it appears that these political parties have not come true with the same,” the bench noted.
In a final warning to both the civic and state authorities, the bench cautioned against pushing the court into taking more stringent action. “Don’t push the court to a corner where we have to then take strict action. We are cautioning you,” the judges concluded.
