“No politician is above law”: Delhi Court orders FIR against Kejriwal for illegal hoardings, slams police for inaction

A Delhi court on March 13, directed the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) supremo and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, along with other individuals, for allegedly defacing public property with illegal hoardings.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of the Rouse Avenue Courts directed the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) to file the FIR under Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property (DPDP) Act, 2007, warning that the case had been stalled for far too long due to blatant police inaction.

The judge’s order comes in response to a petition filed by Shiv Kumar Saxena, who alleged that Kejriwal and other AAP leaders misused public funds to erect oversized hoardings across Delhi’s Dwarka region, violating laws meant to protect public spaces from illegal encroachments.

The complaint detailed that in 2019, massive hoardings bearing Kejriwal’s photograph and name, alongside those of then-MLA Gulab Singh and Nigam Parshad Nitika Sharma, were plastered across public properties—power poles, DDA park boundary walls, road crossings, and other public spaces.

Among the examples cited, one banner announced the Delhi government’s initiative for Kartarpur Sahib pilgrimage registration, prominently featuring Kejriwal and Singh. Another displayed greetings for Guru Nanak Dev Jayanti and Kartik Purnima with Sharma’s image. The complaint also pointed to a separate hoarding featuring BJP leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, JP Nadda, Parvesh Verma, and Ramesh Bidhuri.

Saxena argued that these acts amounted to the criminal defacement of public property and a blatant violation of the DPDP Act, 2007—an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act, which criminalizes the defacement of property in public view.

The Court rebuked the Delhi Police for deliberately delaying action, despite the complainant following due legal procedures by first approaching the concerned SHO and then escalating the matter to senior police officials. The judge lambasted the police for ignoring repeated court directives and failing to file an Action Taken Report (ATR) over multiple hearings. “The investigating agency cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold,” the Court remarked, highlighting that the delay was solely due to police negligence and its repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Making strong observations on the larger implications of the case, the Court stated:

“Defacement of property is not just an eyesore and a public nuisance, but a direct assault on the city’s aesthetic integrity. It also creates hazardous conditions, distracting traffic and endangering pedestrians and vehicles. Deaths caused by the collapse of illegal hoardings are not new in India.”

The Court also pointed out that government agencies are expected to set an example in following the law, not blatantly violating it for political self-promotion. The Delhi Police attempted to downplay the case, arguing that since the complaint was from 2019, the illegal hoardings were no longer visible, making it “impossible” to establish a cognizable offence.

The Court outright rejected this argument, stating that:

• Photographs with date and time stamps provided by the complainant clearly prove that illegal hoardings were erected.
• It is the duty of the investigating agency to determine who was responsible for the defacement, not the complainant.
• The absence of printing press details on the hoardings does not absolve those responsible; a proper investigation is necessary to trace their origins.

Moreover, the police argued that the complainant initially named around 8-10 individuals, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, but later omitted many names in his court application.

The Court dismissed this claim outright, stating: “The mentioning or omission of names by the complainant does not determine the course of investigation. The investigating agency has ample authority to include any person as an accused if their involvement in the offence is established.” Given the prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence, the Court ordered the Delhi Police to immediately register an FIR under Section 3 of the DPDP Act, 2007 and any other relevant laws. The police must submit a compliance report on March 18, detailing the progress of the investigation.