Skip to main content

Indian law relating to Ad Posters

 It is a very common scene in India to find posters and banners splattered across the walls, buildings houses, buses etc. Often we see these posted on places not meant to host them. Public places like parks, bus/railway/metro stations, colleges, government buildings are the most common targets of these unwarranted posters. Owing to this, the States have local advertisement laws and by-laws and municipal Acts which prevent and penalise defacement of public property by putting up posters and banners.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


It has also been categorically held in various cases that putting up of posters/banners hampers the right to a hygienic environment which is an integral facet of healthy life. The right to live in a humane and healthy environment is violated by the illegalities committed by the people who put up such posters/banners on public and private properties


The Supreme Court (SC) has also held in its various judgement that as posters should be regulated for both public and private properties since public life is affected under both the circumstances.  The Delhi High Court too, in one of its judgments, held that for putting up unlicensed posters and banners, no parallel can be drawn with the right to freedom of speech and expression.

         


Law governing Ad posters in India?

The earliest laws in this regard are the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976 which defines defacement of property as interfering with the appearance of any erection in any manner whatsoever. The Act penalises such interference with a punishment of imprisonment up to 6 months or a fine of Rs. 1000 or both.


Consult: Top Civil Lawyers in India


This Act was also extended to the NCT of Delhi in 1983 until its own advertisement law came up in 2008. Apart from the aforementioned 1976 Act, the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 was passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi in 2008 and lays down stricter punishment for defacement of property.

 


What is the Punishment imposed by the law?

Under the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, the punishment for defacing property is an imprisonment up to a period of one year or a fine up to Rs. 50, 000 or both.


Under West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976, the punishment for defacement only done by writing or marking with ink, chalk or paint or any other material under Section 3 of the Act entails a maximum punishment of six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


Putting of banners or posters will not attract the liability of the wrongdoer as the said banner or poster, under normal circumstances, can be removed without affecting the basic structure or appearance of the article on which they are affixed.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more