ARTICLE
9 July 2026

High Court Of Delhi Holds That Reasonable And Limited Restriction Does Not Violate Article 14 Or 19 Of The Constitution

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 19.06.2026 in M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors. , dismissed a challenge to the directions prohibiting political advertisements at Delhi Metro stations during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”) on the ground that it is not violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, 1949 (“Constitution”).
India Government, Public Sector
Sagus Legal LLP’s articles from Sagus Legal are most popular:
  • within Government and Public Sector topic(s)
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Sagus Legal are most popular:
  • within Government, Public Sector, Accounting and Audit and Technology topic(s)

The High Court of Delhi, through its judgment dated 19.06.2026 in M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Election Commission of India & Ors.1 , dismissed a challenge to the directions prohibiting political advertisements at Delhi Metro stations during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”) on the ground that it is not violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, 1949 (“Constitution”).

M/s EG Communications Pvt. Ltd. (“EGC”), who held advertising licences, challenged the insertion of a clause prohibiting political advertisements at the Delhi Metro stations during the operation of the MCC period, contending that it was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

The Court held that the restriction was reasonable and limited to political advertisements during the MCC period and did not prevent EGC from carrying on their advertising business otherwise. EGC is free to display advertisements that are not political in nature, even during operation of the MCC. It further held that letters and instructions by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution are binding. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Footnote

1 LPA 16/2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More