New Delhi [India], September 24 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday criticised authorities for their failure to take action against those responsible for defacing public property during the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections. The court expressed its concern over this "serious issue," highlighting the widespread problem of defacement, such as posters, banners, and graffiti during election campaigns.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, issued strict directions regarding the defacement of public property during the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections. The court has instructed the Delhi University counsellor, who was present at the hearing, to immediately issue notices to all candidates involved in defacing public property, such as DMRC stations, MCD areas, and bus stands.
These candidates are to be disqualified, and they must remove the hoardings, flex boards, and pamphlets at their own expense within 24 hours, warned the Court.
The court also directed the counsellor to ensure the presence of the Chief Election Officer of Delhi University at the next hearing, scheduled for tomorrow. Additionally, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) have been tasked with providing the names of the candidates responsible for the defacement to the DU counsellor for further action.
Adv. Prashant Manchanda, the petitioner, brought attention to the rampant defacement of public and metro properties, particularly by candidates contesting the Delhi University Students' Union (DUSU) elections, set for September 26, 2024. The defacement includes damage to bus stands, walls of police stations, university walls, and other public areas, he apprised the court.
Advocate Manchanda highlighted the violation of a previous Delhi High Court judgement in Prashant Manchanda vs. UOI (W.P.(C) 7824 and 8251 of 2017), where the court had framed guidelines to address such defacement issues.
The Delhi High Court had earlier criticised the Centre, Delhi government, and Delhi Metro for failing to take adequate action against offenders responsible for defacing public property. The court's concern arose from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Prashant Manchanda, which sought a complete ban on the defacement of public property, particularly during election periods. The PIL also called for directions to civic agencies to impose heavy fines on political parties and aspiring candidates, aiming to deter them from further damaging public spaces.