The Madras High Court has issued a stern warning that it may initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against political parties and other organisations that persist in erecting unauthorised flagpoles in public places such as medians, sidewalks and roadsides, despite prior judicial directives. The bench observed that repeated disobedience of previous orders and failure of authorities to enforce them are undermining the rule of law and public order.
During the hearing, Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan noted that a previous court order had explicitly prohibited the installation of permanent flagpoles on public land, state or national highways, and local-body property without lawful sanction. He further revealed that he himself had witnessed party flags mounted on the Anna Flyover in Chennai, and had even recorded video evidence of the same. The Court pointed out that the Government Advocate had conceded no orders had been granted for such installations and action had yet to be taken.
The Court questioned the government’s inaction: despite clear judicial directions, political flags were still being placed in the middle of the road, creating hazards for traffic, pedestrians and civil maintenance. The Additional Advocate General claimed that reports had been sought from district collectors about steps taken against those responsible, but Justice Ilanthiraiyan observed that such responses were tardy and insufficient. He made it clear that if the erecting of unauthorised flagpoles continues, the High Court will not hesitate to invoke its contempt jurisdiction and hold responsible officials and parties personally accountable.
In its earlier January order, the Court had directed all political parties, communal organisations and other entities to remove permanent flagpoles erected without permission within a fixed timeline. The authorities were empowered to recover removal costs from those responsible. The Court reiterated that there is no legal mechanism under which licences can be issued for permanent flagpoles on medians or pavements in public spaces, and that neither the police nor revenue authorities have jurisdiction to grant such permission.
The bench gave the State government a timetable to furnish details and compliance reports, but made clear that compliance is expected diligently and immediately. It emphasised that public spaces are not for symbolic monuments that compromise urban management, traffic safety or public aesthetics. The warning reflects the Court’s dissatisfaction with repeated violations and the prevalence of political symbolism over lawful public administration.
The matter was adjourned for further hearing, with the Court reserving the right to initiate contempt in the next hearing unless visible and verifiable action is taken by the concerned authorities. The decision underscores the judiciary’s resolve to enforce compliance of its orders in public-space management and its readiness to deploy its contempt powers to ensure adherence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.