The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi ordered the registration of a First Information Report ( FIR) against former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on March 11, 2025 Allegations that Kejriwal,
together with former Matiala MLA Gulab Singh and ex-Dwarka Councillor Nitika Sharma, installed big, illegal hoardings in Dwarka in 2019 misappropriated public money center the issue.
The court’s ruling in a case involving public resource abuse and public safety issues represents a notable change.
This paper explores the legal foundation of the case, the particulars of the complaint, court procedures, and more general consequences for public administration and responsibility.
Legal Framework: 2007 Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act
Section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Deface of Property Act, 2007 forms the foundation for most of the accusations directed against Arvind Kejriwal and his allies.
Except for displaying the owner’s name and address, this part expressly forbids the defacing of public property by writing or marking with materials including ink, chalk, or paint.
Breaking this clause might result in fines up to ₹50,000, jail for up to one year, or both.
The law seeks to guarantee public safety by means of forbidden or dangerous construction, so preserving the visual character of public areas.
In this instance, the court is looking at whether the hoardings put in Dwarka broke any legal clauses, especially because they were purportedly placed using public money for political propaganda.
The Gripe of Shiv Kumar Saxena
The matter started with a 2019 complaint made by Shiv Kumar Saxena. Saxena said that by erecting massive hoardings across several public sites in Dwarka, Arvind Kejriwal, Gulab Singh, and Nitika Sharma abused government funds.
Often containing the pictures and names of Kejriwal and his friends, these hoardings displayed festive greetings and commercial messages.
The complaint included multiple instances of these claimed infractions. One poster prominently showing the photos of Kejriwal and Gulab Singh highlighted the Delhi Government’s effort to enable darshan registrations for Kartarpur Sahib.
Featuring Nitika Sharma, another hoarding welcomes Gurunanak Dev Jayanti and Kartik Purnima.
Under the Deface of Property Act, these installations—which range from crossings to power poles to boundary walls of DDA parks to public roads—were situated in high-visibility sites.
Saxena said that using public money for political advancement was both unethical and criminal.
Court Cases and Judicial Notes
Originally dismissing Saxena’s complaint in September 2022, a magistrate’s court said there were insufficient grounds to proceed.
After review, nevertheless, the Sessions Court determined validity in the claims, which resulted in the March 2025 FIR filing directive.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal underlined the gravity of the offense. The judge underlined that illegal hoardings not only against legal standards but also seriously endanger safety.
Such unauthorized installations, the court noted, might divert cars, compromise pedestrians, and raise accident risk.
The court further pointed out that falling unlawful hoardings are not unusual events causing fatalities in India. The court’s strong position emphasizes the significance of enforcing responsibility when public officials supposedly waste public funds.
Approximate expenses and public safety issues
Although the precise spending on the claimed hoardings is unknown, industry estimates indicate that depending on their location and size, big hoardings in Delhi in 2019 might cost between ₹20,000 and ₹50,000 monthly.
Given the several installations around Dwarka, the overall cost probably was somewhat high.
Apart from the financial consideration, the lawsuit emphasizes safety issues. Many times built without necessary structural assessments, unauthorized hoardings run the danger of collapsing under bad weather.
Several incidents connected to unlawful hoardings in Delhi in 2019 confirmed the court’s worries about public safety.
2019’s political backdrop
The political scene of 2019 provides an important background for these accusations. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was getting ready for the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections set for early 2020 during this period.
Before elections, political parties often launch aggressive advertising campaigns to increase public participation and improve their chances for winning.
One could read the hoardings in issue, which mostly show Kejriwal and his associates, as part of a larger political agenda.
Should the claims be true, they highlight the unethical and legal consequences resulting from the use of public funds to support political agendas.
larger Consequences of the Case
The instruction to initiate a FIR against Arvind Kejriwal, Gulab Singh, and Nitika Sharma begs serious issues regarding public office responsibility.
The case emphasizes the significance of keeping the rule of law and stopping the abuse of public resources.
Legally, the result of this case might set standards for public official responsibility for illegal public fund use.
Moreover, the case emphasizes the public safety concerns related to unauthorized installations, therefore underlining the need of rigorous application of current rules.
The impression that public resources are handled with openness and integrity determines public confidence in government institutions.
Allegations of theft for political or personal benefit might weaken this confidence, so the court and law enforcement authorities have to respond forcefully.
The order of the Rouse Avenue Court to record a FIR against Arvind Kejriwal and his allies emphasizes the court’s important contribution in maintaining ethical and legal norms in public administration.
The course of inquiry will act as a litmus test for the systems meant to stop public resource abuse.
The case underlines how public money should be used sensibly and how violations—no matter how well-known—should be handled by suitable legal action.
It also demands more alertness in guaranteeing public safety by means of appropriate control of public ads and hoardings. The result of ongoing legal procedures could have long-lasting effects on public responsibility imposed in India’s democratic system.
