Karnataka High Court notice on plea against scheme for regularising ‘illegal’ digital advertisement hoardings

The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday ordered the issue of notice to the State government and the Greater Bangalore Authority (GBA) on a PIL petition complaining of “mushrooming” of self-advertisement/signage electronic/digital hoardings being “illegally” used to display commercial advertisements, and the recent rules providing One Time Opportunity (OTO) to convert such illegal self-advertisement hoardings to commercial ones.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha passed the order on the petition filed by 84-year-old K. Laxmana, a retired Central government servant and a social worker.

Three-month window

The petitioner has specifically challenged Rule 8(7)(vii) of the Greater Bengaluru Area (Advertisement) Rules, 2025, and a subsequent government order dated February 4, 2026, which provides a three-month window — ending in April 2026 — for existing self-advertisement hoardings to be converted into commercial advertisement hoardings upon payment of prescribed fees.

It has been claimed in the petition that most of these electronic hoardings on private properties were erected during a total ban imposed earlier on commercial hoardings in 2018 following the High Court’s intervention. Later, the erstwhile Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) council had unanimously passed a resolution banning commercial hoardings on private properties and public rights-of-way to maintain the city’s aesthetics and safety, leading to the BBMP Outdoor Signage and Public Messaging Bye-Laws, 2018, the petitioner has said.

Flagrant violation

Despite this ban, the GBA allegedly continued granting permissions for electronic/digital self-advertisements hoardings, meant only for on-site business identification and publicity and not for displaying any other publicity materials, in flagrant violation of Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020, which mandates the Chief Commissioner’s written permission.

The petitioner contends the OTO scheme is “manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional” as it rewards violators by legitimising illegal hoardings currently used for commercial purposes in breach of their original permissions for self-advertisement only. It also bypasses the competitive bidding process mandated for commercial advertisements under new regulations, creating an unfair advantage for those who violated the law, it has been claimed in the petition.

Accident risks

Also, the petitioner has contended that bright, frequently changing LED/LCDs on these electronic/digital hoardings distract motorists and pedestrians, posing accident risks. While characterising these digital hoardings as “visual pollution”, the petitioner has said that this amounts to infringement of the right to the environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.