The tragic incident in Mumbai, where an illegal billboard collapsed in a dust storm, resulting in 16 fatalities and over 70 injuries, has exposed the systemic failure of municipal corporations in regulating unauthorised hoardings. Despite clear regulations, these structures continue to proliferate, posing a grave risk to public safety.
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), responsible for regulating outdoor advertising in Mumbai, has admitted to the presence of unauthorised hoardings and pledged action. However, such post-facto responses are inadequate, especially considering that deaths caused by illegal hoardings are not new in India. In recent years, similar incidents have occurred in Pune, Coimbatore, and other cities, resulting in multiple casualties.
The presence of a hoarding nine times the permissible size in Mumbai raises serious questions about the BMC’s oversight responsibilities. A review of outdoor advertising policies across Indian cities reveals that many lack clear timelines for action against illegal hoardings. Furthermore, violations of permissible dimensions are rampant, with billboards far exceeding the prescribed sizes.
High Courts have repeatedly reprimanded municipal corporations for their inaction and inadequate enforcement of advertising regulations. The Bombay High Court has even provided a detailed procedure for removing illegal hoardings. Yet, despite these orders, negligence and mismanagement persist, leading to tragic incidents.
Two key factors hinder effective regulation: lack of transparency and intermittent enforcement. Advertising policies must provide clear mechanisms for lodging complaints against illegal hoardings and outlining the subsequent actions to be taken. Enforcement requires a robust mechanism ensuring the prompt removal of unauthorised structures.
While enforcement provisions exist in some regulations, they are often not implemented effectively. For instance, the Delhi Outdoor Advertising Policy mandates the removal of non-compliant structures within a specified timeframe, but enforcement remains lax. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Advertisement Rules, 2021, included a comprehensive enforcement regime, but were withdrawn due to public backlash.
The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules require quarterly reports on the licensing of hoardings, but such reviews are often superficial. Inter-departmental bodies involving the traffic department, zonal officers, and safety engineers can conduct periodic inspections to enhance enforcement.
City-level policies should specify the course of action for unauthorised hoardings, including durable installations and temporary banners and flexes. Officials who fail to remove illegal structures despite complaints must face consequences. Platforms for citizens to report violations can also facilitate enforcement.
Technology can aid in compliance monitoring through QR codes on authorised hoardings. Safety requirements for outdoor advertising infrastructure are often overlooked. Instead of evading responsibility by claiming that illegal structures were unauthorised, municipal authorities must proactively identify and remove them.
In conclusion, the Mumbai incident serves as a wake-up call for municipal corporations to institute proactive enforcement mechanisms. Rather than responding solely to court orders or tragic incidents, cities must prioritise public safety by ensuring compliance with advertising regulations. Transparent policies, robust enforcement, and inter-departmental coordination are essential to prevent further preventable deaths caused by unauthorised hoardings.