#dnaEdit: Clutter-free city

Barely a couple of months away from assembly elections, Mumbaikars had braced themselves for an ugly sight: the city cloaked in political banners and hoardings. What comes as a much-needed breather, and might clear the visual clutter once and for all, is a recent Bombay high court order. Thanks to the court, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s till-now ineffective drive will now have enough muscle to tear down the giant installations, regardless of the resistance of political workers. It can press charges against the accused under the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of Property (MPDP) Act, which deems such offences non-cognisable and attracts three months’ imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs2,000. 

The high court’s resolve to rescue the city from a deluge of propaganda should drill some sense into political leaders, especially their acolytes who would turn every occasion into a brazen display of loyalty. A birthday or an electoral victory is always accompanied by congratulatory messages. The worst affected are the pedestrians who have to contend with ever shrinking space on the sidewalks, monopolised by hawkers and hoardings. 

The earlier initiatives of the BMC had come a cropper for two reasons: the violent nature of protests from cadres and the general confusion over public and private spaces. In a note to the high court, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai had stated that without police protection, its employees and vehicles are at grave risk during a clean-up operation. Taking note of the hooliganism and to foster greater cooperation between civic and police officials, the court has now mandated that the police are bound to register a case under the MPDP Act whenever civic officials bring to their notice an illegal banner or hoarding. If the cop in-charge of a police station fails to do so, civic officials can take up the matter with the nodal officer — within the city, it’s a deputy commissioner, and outside the city precincts, a deputy superintendent. The officer will have to immediately take cognisance of the complaint and ensure speedy, effective action. 

The confusion over what can be termed as public space, too, has been resolved by the court as its definition of a “place open to public view” now includes “any private place, building, monument, statue, post, wall, fence, tree or contrivance that is visible to a person at a public space”. 

However, a vigilant civic body and police will still prove to be inadequate if the root cause is not addressed. That means making political parties accountable for creating the mess that the city finds itself in. Here again, the court should be lauded for asking political parties whether they are willing to give an undertaking that their members would not erect hoardings and banners without the civic body’s permission. There are reasons to believe that some of them, even if they promise not to clutter the cityscape, may not honour their commitments. The NCP and the BJP had earlier shown signs of amnesia even after making grand promises to keep the city clean. A lot will now depend on the Election Commission whose opinion the court has sought in this matter. It had asked the EC whether political parties should face strict actions if they erect illegal hoardings and banners. 

Mumbai, India’s El Dorado, is already on ventilation, plagued by numerous crises that keep multiplying every day. The court order, if implemented in letter and spirit, can be a significant step towards reviving a grievously ailing metropolis.