Madras High Court Upholds Order Directing Political Parties, Other Organisations To Remove Permanent Flagpoles From Govt Lands

The division bench of Justice J Nisha Banu and Justice S Srimathy dismissed an appeal filed against the single judge's order, noting that there was no reason to interfere with the same.

In January this year, Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan directed all political parties in the State to remove the permanent flagpoles erected by them in public land within 12 months. The single judge also directed the concerned authorities to take appropriate action if the parties failed to comply with the orders of the court.

The single judge had also remarked that there was no law that permitted issuing licenses to install permanent flagpoles in public places. The court added that the police and the revenue authorities did not have jurisdiction to issue a No-Objection certificate allowing the erection of flag poles in public places. The judge added that flagpoles often caused inconvenience to the commuters and also affected traffic in some cases

While the court clarified that there was no restriction on political parties installing flagpoles in their private patta land during political meetings, campaigns etc, it emphasised that such temporary flagpoles should be erected by complying with the relevant rules and must be taken down after the meetings. The court had also directed the State to formulate rules for installing flagpoles in private land.

On appeal, it was argued that the single judge had gone beyond the scope of the prayer sought for in the writ petition. It was argued that the prayer in the writ was only to direct authorities to allow erection of a flagpole belonging to the AIADMK party, but the judge had gone on to restrict all flagpoles in the State. It was also argued that political parties had a right to erect their flags which could not be curtailed.

The division bench, however, opined that the single judge had rightly observed that no one had a right to erect flagpoles by obstructing public users. The court also agreed that the erection of flagpoles was an encroachment that needed urgent action.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order of the single judge, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Ammavasithevar v. KR Chitran and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 93

Case No: WA(MD) 485 of 2025