Political Advertisements On Metro Trains And Stations Can Be Restricted During Elections To Avoid Government Association: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed by advertising agencies against directions issued pursuant to Election Commission instructions requiring the insertion of a clause in advertising contracts prohibiting political advertisements on metro premises during the operation of the MCC.

A Division Bench of 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 appellant. Sanjay Vashistha, Standing Counsel & Advocate Devvrat Yadav appeared for the respondents.

Background

The appellants were advertising agencies that had secured long-term advertising rights on metro trains, stations and related infrastructure pursuant to contracts awarded by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The agreements permitted commercial advertisements and, according to the appellants, political advertisements had historically been allowed on commercially authorised sites.

Following instructions issued by the Election Commission of India regarding political advertisements during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct, directions were issued requiring DMRC to incorporate a contractual clause prohibiting political advertisements on leased advertising spaces during the MCC period and requiring the removal of any existing political advertisements upon enforcement of the MCC.

The advertising agencies challenged the restriction, contending that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. They argued that political advertisements continued to be permitted at certain other public advertising locations and that the restriction adversely affected their commercial interests.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, following which the matter reached the Division Bench on appeal.

Court's Observations

The Court first examined the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge and noted that the restrictions were limited in duration and applied only during the period when the MCC remained in force. The Court observed that the advertising agencies continued to remain free to display all non-political advertisements and that the restriction was confined only to political content during elections.

Referring to the findings of the Single Judge, the Court noted: "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."

The Bench then considered the challenge founded upon Article 14 of the Constitution. The appellants had argued that the Election Commission permitted political advertisements at certain other locations, including bus queue shelters, while prohibiting them on metro premises. The Court rejected the comparison and held that metro stations and trains constitute a distinct category.

Accepting the Election Commission's submission, the Court 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 distinction between metro infrastructure and bus shelters constituted a valid basis for differential treatment. It further emphasised that metro infrastructure is closely associated in the public mind with governmental authorities and that political messaging displayed in such spaces may affect the neutrality expected during elections.

The Court also rejected the argument that the restriction infringed the appellants' rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). It noted that the impugned directions did not prohibit the advertising business altogether and merely restricted one category of advertisements for a limited duration.

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."

The Court further found that the Election Commission possessed authority under Article 324 of the Constitution to issue directions governing election-related matters in areas not occupied by legislation. Accepting the Commission's submissions, the Court held that such instructions were issued to ensure a level playing field during elections and were binding in nature.

The Bench noted: "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."

The Court also observed that the commercial interests asserted by the advertising agencies could not outweigh the larger public objective of ensuring free and fair elections. Referring to the findings of the Single Judge, the Court noted that the appellants' interest was essentially commercial, whereas the impugned directions sought to advance the broader public interest underlying the electoral process.

Having examined the constitutional challenges and the rationale behind the Election Commission's directions, the Court concluded that the restrictions were reasonable, limited in scope and aimed at preserving electoral neutrality.

Conclusion

Finding no merit in the challenge, the Delhi High Court upheld the restrictions on political advertisements at metro stations and trains during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct and dismissed the appeal. 

Cause Title: M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5140-DB)

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

Click here to read/download Judgment