Election Commission Instructions Restricting Political Advertisements on Public Sector Property During Model Code of Conduct are Valid

The Appellants are advertising agencies that were awarded long-term contracts (approx. 10 years) by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for advertising rights on trains and stations

Initially, guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in 2008 and 2013 permitted political advertisements on commercially authorized sites during the Model Code of Conduct (MCC)

However, on 13.06.2019, the ECI directed the DMRC to insert a clause in its contracts prohibiting all political advertisements on leased spaces during the MCC period

The DMRC complied on 26.08.2019

The Appellants challenged this as a unilateral and discriminatory restriction on their business, as similar bans were not applied to bus queue shelters

A Single Judge dismissed their writ petition on 09.01.2020, leading to this Letters Patent Appeal

1. Whether the ECI’s direction to ban political advertisements in DMRC premises during the MCC is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

2. Whether the restriction constitutes an unreasonable curtailment of the freedom to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g)

3. Whether the ECI has the authority under Article 324 to issue such instructions in the absence of a specific statute

Article 324 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Election Commission plenary powers to superintend, direct, and control elections, including the power to issue instructions to ensure a "level playing field" where no statute exists

Relied on Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu to affirm these sui generis powers

Applied the "twin test" of reasonable classification under Article 14 as per Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar

The doctrine that under-inclusiveness in regulatory policy does not necessarily violate equal protection as per Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Girish Kumar Navalakha

The Court reasoned that the restriction was not absolute but limited to the brief duration when the MCC is in force, allowing Appellants to continue non-political commercial advertising

Regarding the Article 14 challenge, the Court found a valid distinction between Metro premises and bus queue shelters; Metro structures are more closely identified with the government, and the restriction ensures political campaigns are not perceived as having state endorsement

Furthermore, the Court held that the Appellants cannot claim "negative equality" by citing the lack of restrictions on bus shelters, especially since the MCC itself general restricts public property use

Crucially, the Court determined that the ECI’s instructions under Article 324 have the force of law, satisfying the requirements of Article 19(2) and (6) for imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of free and fair elections

The commercial interests of the agencies were held subordinate to the larger public interest of electoral integrity

The Court found no violation of Article 19(1)(g) as the business restriction is partial and temporary, and no violation of Article 14 as the classification was reasonable under the circumstances of election management

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s judgment; all pending applications were disposed of as infructuous