3 months ago
1
The High Court of Karnataka connected Wednesday ordered the contented of announcement to the State authorities and the Greater Bangalore Authority (GBA) connected a PIL petition complaining of “mushrooming” of self-advertisement/signage electronic/digital hoardings being “illegally” utilized to show commercialized advertisements, and the caller rules providing One Time Opportunity (OTO) to person specified amerciable self-advertisement hoardings to commercialized ones.
A part seat comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha passed the bid connected the petition filed by 84-year-old K. Laxmana, a retired Central authorities servant and a societal worker.
Three-month window
The petitioner has specifically challenged Rule 8(7)(vii) of the Greater Bengaluru Area (Advertisement) Rules, 2025, and a consequent authorities bid dated February 4, 2026, which provides a three-month model — ending successful April 2026 — for existing self-advertisement hoardings to beryllium converted into commercialized advertisement hoardings upon outgo of prescribed fees.
It has been claimed successful the petition that astir of these physics hoardings connected backstage properties were erected during a full prohibition imposed earlier connected commercialized hoardings successful 2018 pursuing the High Court’s intervention. Later, the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) assembly had unanimously passed a solution banning commercialized hoardings connected backstage properties and nationalist rights-of-way to support the city’s aesthetics and safety, starring to the BBMP Outdoor Signage and Public Messaging Bye-Laws, 2018, the petitioner has said.
Flagrant violation
Despite this ban, the GBA allegedly continued granting permissions for electronic/digital self-advertisements hoardings, meant lone for on-site concern recognition and publicity and not for displaying immoderate different publicity materials, successful flagrant usurpation of Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020, which mandates the Chief Commissioner’s written permission.
The petitioner contends the OTO strategy is “manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional” arsenic it rewards violators by legitimising amerciable hoardings presently utilized for commercialized purposes successful breach of their archetypal permissions for self-advertisement only. It besides bypasses the competitory bidding process mandated for commercialized advertisements nether caller regulations, creating an unfair vantage for those who violated the law, it has been claimed successful the petition.
Accident risks
Also, the petitioner has contended that bright, often changing LED/LCDs connected these electronic/digital hoardings distract motorists and pedestrians, posing mishap risks. While characterising these integer hoardings arsenic “visual pollution”, the petitioner has said that this amounts to infringement of the close to the situation guaranteed nether Article 21 of the Constitution.
