Gwalior, Date: 23.04.

2016
To,
The Joint Director,
(Transport), Urban Development and
Environment Department,
Palika Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar,
Bhopal. (M.P.)

Subject:- Objections against the Madhya Pradesh Outdoor

Advertisement Media Rules, 2016.

On behalf of our association, the following objections are

being sent against the Madhya Pradesh Outdoor Advertisement Media
Rules, 2016 as under:-

OBJECTIONS

The State Govt. has issued a proposed Madhya Pradesh

Outdoor Advertisement Media Rules, 2016 issued by Urban
Development and Environment Department, Government of Madhya
Pradesh.
The State Govt. must understand that Supreme Court in the
case of TATA Press Limited V/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited and others reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2438 has
observed as under –
Para 18 –
 2

“We are of the view that all commercial

advertisements cannot be denied the protection of
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution merely
because they are issued by businessmen.”

Para 19 –
“Advertising is considered to be the cornerstone
of our economic system. Low prices for
consumers are dependent upon mass production,
mass production is dependent upon volume sales,
and volume sales are dependent upon advertising.
Apart from the lifeline of the free economy in a
democratic country, advertising can be viewed as
the life blood of free media, paying of the costs
and thus making the media widely available.”

Para 21 –
“This Court in Bennett Coleman and Company
V/s. Union of India held as under:-
“The law which lays excessive and
prohibitive burden which would restrict the
circulation of a newspaper will not be saved by
Article 19(2). If the area of advertisements is
restricted, price of paper goes up. If the price goes
up circulation will go down. This was held in
Sakal Papers case (AIR 1962 SC 305) to be the
direct consequence of curtailment of
advertisement.”

Para 22 –
“Advertising as a “commercial speech” has two
facets. Advertising which is no more than a
commercial transaction is nonetheless
 3

dissemination of information regarding the

product advertised. Public at large is benefited by
the information made available through the
advertisement. In a democratic economy free flow
of commercial information is indispensable. There
cannot be honest and economical marketing by
the public at large without being educated by the
information disseminated through advertisements.
The economic system in a democracy would be
handicapped without there being freedom of
“commercial speech”.

Thus commercial advertisement is included in commercial

speech and is protected by Article 19(1)(a) with regard to speech and
expression. The advertising and/or hoarding business by agencies is
covered by commercial speech and therefore, entitled to protection
under Article 19(1)(a). The restriction can be placed only in the
interest of public order decency or morality or in relation to contempt
of Court, defamation or insentient to an offence and not otherwise.

The business of advertisements/hoardings is a fundamental

right of the agencies and of those persons who are giving commercial
advertisements for promoting their products. The hoarding
associations members have a right to business under Article 19(1)(g)
of the Constitution and restrictions can be placed only under Article
19(6) only in the interest of general public and not otherwise. The
ambit of interest of general public is restricted to public health and
 4

morals, economic stability of the country, maintenance of purity and

public life and like that a restriction under Article 19(6) has to
commensurate with the danger post as held by the Supreme Court in
case of Omprakash V/s. Union of India reported in AIR 2000 SC
3689. The restrictions which are placed on the rights of the property
owners who wish their property to be used for advertisement are
prohibited by the complicated and complex rules by which it is
impossible for them to allow their property to be used by advertising
agencies or other manner to advertise on their property.

The regulation under Article 19(2) and 19(6) does not

mean direct or indirect prohibition.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court Rule 5

is so much complicated i.e. denies the property owner to permit them
or any agency to advertise on his property. Rule 5(2) lays down
unreasonable restrictions by Clause 2 Sub Clause (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) of
these rules. Rule 7 dealing with withdrawal of an approval in Clause
(1) Sub Clause (a) (c) (d) (e) (f) and Clause (4) are unreasonable
restrictions. Rule 8(3) is again unreasonable restriction. Rule 10 is also
an unreasonable restriction. Rule 11 Sub Rule 2, 3, 4 are meant to give
monopoly of the advertisement to the chosen few by the Municipal
Corporations and State Govt. and depriving a large number of
 5

individual advertisers. Such a monopoly cannot be created in favour of

private parties.

License fees, as proposed by the rules in appendix-4(3), is

unreasonable and arbitrary, because it is related to the municipal
rentals per media city/year/per Sq.ft. connected with the circle rate. It
is an unreasonable restriction in the light of the Supreme Court case in
Tata Press Limited (supra).

It is un-understandable why the M.P. Govt. has framed so

complicated and complex rules Madhya Pradesh Outdoor
Advertisement Media Rules, 2016 when the other States have made
simple rules for convenience of private property owners and
advertising agencies. By such rules their rights to business under
Article 19(1)(g) is totally finished.

The Maharashtra Govt. framed Maharashtra Municipal

Corporation (Regulation and Control of the display of Sky Signs
and Advertisement Rules, 2014).

Rule 3 relates to permission to an agency for advertisement

on private properties. The owner of property does not come into the
picture at all. The agency has to make application for permission in
 6

writing and NOC of the owner of property is only required. The rule is
absolutely simple and can be complied with easily.
Rule 5 relates to restriction for display of the hoarding or
advertisement and the restrictions are absolutely simple and clear and
can be followed.
Rule 6 relates to sizes of hoardings and the precautions to
be taken.
Rule 7 relates to structural design, erection of the hoarding.
Rule 8 relates to structural stability of hoarding.
Rule 9 relates to permissible colors of advertisement.
Rule 10 relates to maximum height of the hoarding board.
Rule 11 relates to minimum distance between two
hoardings.
Rule 12 relates to alignment of hoardings.
Rule 13 relates to projection of hoarding.
Rule 14 relates to hoarding on railway premises.
Rule 15 relates to hoardings on the premises of other
public authorities.
Rule 19 relates to procedure for obtaining permission.
Rule 20 relates to documents to be submitted with
application for permission of advertisement on business premises by
way of illuminated glow sign, neon-sign, etc.
Rule 23 relates to fees of advertisement permits.
 7

Rule 25 relates to duties and responsibilities of permit

holder agency.
Rule 26 relates to renewal of advertisement licenses.
Rule 27 relates to transfer of advertisement permit.
Rule 29 relates to appellate authorities and the application
form under Rule 19(a) is absolutely simple.

The Rules, 2016 framed as proposed by the Govt. of M.P.

are arbitrary, unreasonable, not permissible under Article 19(2) and
19(6) as they are unreasonable restrictions. It is practically impossible
for a property owner or an advertising agency to advertise through
private and public property. Thus these rules prohibit the private
property owners and hoarding agencies to do their business and the
State Govt. by framing the rules are prohibiting them to do their
business of advertising and the property owners from exercising their
right under Article 19(1)(a). The business world is interested that their
products be freely advertised and at a low cost so that commercial
advertisement is their business and also a right under Article 19(1)(a)
the advertising agencies have a freedom to carry on the business of
commercial advertisement on private and public properties at a low
cost and with better circulation so that general public may be benefited
by such commercial advertisements. The fees should be reasonable
 8

and not excessive otherwise it is liable to struck down under Article

19(6) and 19(2) of the Constitution.

The conclusion is that the Rules, 2016 framed by the State

Govt. should be completely scrapped because it is impossible for the
property owners to allow commercial advertisement on that property
and it prohibits the advertising agencies from undertaking the business
of commercial advertisement of other businessmen on their hoardings.
The law does not permit an impossible act to be done either directly or
indirectly. No law can be made to perform an impossible act, which is
done by these Rules. These objections may be taken into consideration
and the entire rules must be scrapped and reframed in the light of the
Maharashtra Rules. A copy of the Maharashtra Rules is annexed for
your information.

In case objections are not considered and these rules are

not scrapped then our clients shall be compelled to approach the M.P.
High Court for quashing the rules. And you shall be responsible as to
costs and consequences.

This notice be treated as objections and for rectifications in

the said policy. Please make such rules which facilitates the rights
under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of our clients.
9

Yours sincerely,
Neha johri