[Bihar Elections] Political parties can erect hoardings on private property with consent of owner: Patna HC [Read Order]

The Patna High Court has given the green light for political parties to erect hoardings and banners on private property during an election campaign, with the written consent of the owner/occupier of the property (Century Business Pvt Ltd v. Chief Electoral Officer & Ors)..The Court was considering a petition filed by Century Business, which was commissioned by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to put up 950 hoardings on its properties across Bihar..The matter involved the interpretation of Section 3 of the Bihar Prevention of Defacement Act, 1987. The provision allows private property owners to consent in writing to the use of their property by a person or persons contesting an election. The question arose as to whether occupiers/owners could similarly permit political parties to use their property..The Single Bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar opined that permitting only individual candidates as opposed to political parties to raise hoardings would effectively "emasculate" the legislature’s intention in enacting the 1987 Act..Holding that the reference to the Representation of People Act and political party symbols indicated that political parties could also erect hoardings, the Bench stated:."A political party does not exist in vacuum and is not an abstract entity. It consists of persons.".Century had earlier sought the permission of the Chief Electoral Officer to put up hoardings. The Electoral Officer rejected the request, stating that Section 3(3) of the 1987 Act specifically allowed occupiers of property to give written consent to put up campaign hoardings and posters only to persons contesting an election..During proceedings before the High Court, counsel for the Electoral Officer reiterated the stance taken earlier. It was contended that the legislature had deliberately excluded political parties as a class from the privilege of putting up hoardings, since individual candidates were constrained by budgetary limits and would not spend more than was necessary..On the other hand, if a political party were allowed to put up hoardings on private property “the entire State would stand defaced and it would be very difficult to restore the same without spending huge public money", it was contended..The petitioner pointed out that most candidates contest elections as a member of a political party and there could not be a dichotomy between person/persons and the parties to which they belonged..Century referred to a similar law against the defacement of property that was in force in Jharkhand. In that state, the Chief Electoral Officer permitted political parties to put up hoardings..The petitioner also submitted that allowing hoardings would help in controlled campaigning and prevent crowding amid the COVID-19 pandemic..The Court held that allowing political parties to put up hoardings would prevent piecemeal and sporadic hoardings and that there would be lesser chances of defacement of public and private property beyond redemption..Additionally, the Court accepted the petitioner's reference to the legal position in Jharkhand stating "no two standards can be applied in interpreting an Act or Rule in two different contiguous States"..Therefore, the petition was allowed..Senior Advocate S.D. Sanjay and Advocate-on-Record Raju Giri represented the petitioners, while Advocate Siddharth Prasad appeared for the Chief Electoral Officer..Read the Judgment: