A Delhi wall mural was painted by artist Harsh Raman. It is a blend of city symbols and protest ideas. Murals and graffiti in Indian cities are often on the fine line between art and criminality. India’s Constitution, on the one hand, declares that it “protects the right to freedom of speech and expression,” as a Human Rights Watch report says[1]. But laws like the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and other anti-defacement laws criminalize painting walls without permission, which can lead to the prosecution of most street artists. The question is therefore significant: under what conditions will wall art be protected speech under Article 19(1)(a), and when will it be punishable vandalism?[2]
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN INDIA’S CONSTITUTION:
Article 19(1)(a)[3] of the Indian Constitution promises people the “freedom of speech and expression.” Again and again, the Supreme Court has affirmed that public criticism, artistic satire, and dissent are essential to a democracy. On the other hand, Article 19(2)[4] permits “reasonable restrictions” on speech to preserve public order, decency, and morality, and to prevent defamation.[5]. Practically speaking, this is to say that even very critical or satirical speech can be regulated if it violates some legal boundaries. For instance, speech that provokes violence or a disruption of public order can be punished. Critics grumble that sometimes these regulations are applied too broadly – HRW notes that ancient laws regarding sedition and defamation remain on the books and are “often used…to crack down on critics.” That is, free speech protection is robust but not absolute.
The major legal concepts influencing this argument are:
- Article 19(1)(a)[6] – Guarantees free expression, including political speech, art, and demonstration.
- Article 19(2)[7] Restrictions – Speech can be restricted for sovereignty, security, public order, morality, defamation, etc.
- Judicial Approach – Judges like to safeguard various forms of expression, but they have also embraced content-neutral rules (e.g., allow schemes) if they concern public safety. The Supreme Court recently, for instance, noted that citizens both have the “rights…to assemble peacefully and protest” under Article 19, and an “obligation towards certain duties.”
In short, Indian law does not favor political speech, but does not favor illegal graffiti either. Any constitutional claim on behalf of spray-painted slogans or murals has to contend with these boundaries of the law (and usually with the reality that there are no court cases on point about graffiti per se).
Laws Governing Street Art and Vandalism
In India, illegal graffiti is always referred to as vandalism and property damage, and never as free expression. Some of the most significant laws that are frequently used against street artists are:
- Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 (DMC Act)[8] – Section 143(1) prohibits any “advertisement” on buildings, walls, or hoardings without the written consent of the Commissioner. It applies to painted messages or images on public or private walls.
- The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007[9] – Section 3(1) prohibits “defacing any property visible to the public eye by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint, or any other substance” (except official nameplates). An individual can be imprisoned for a term up to one year or fined ₹5,000 (or both). (The Act also makes a supervisor liable if his or her employees deface property.)
- Indian Penal Code (IPC) – IPC Sections 425–427 define “mischief” (property damage)[10]. Graffiti, which alters the surface of walls, typically falls under IPC Section 427 (“mischief of the kind referred to in Section 425, causing damage to the extent of fifty rupees”), for which up to two years’ imprisonment can be stipulated. Sections 441/447 (criminal trespass) can be applied where an artist enters private or restricted areas without permission to paint. Briefly, painting a wall without permission is a property damage crime.
- Other City/Transit Regulations – The same regulations apply elsewhere. For instance, the Delhi Metro Railway Act, 2002 (Section 72)[11] States that you will not deface trains or stations. In coastal cities, the city laws and the NDMC Act also prohibit illegal wall graffiti.
In practice, police and civic authorities seldom make a fine distinction between content. A political slogan sprayed on a government building is pursued under the same defacement statutes as a random tag. Enforcement often overlooks any expressive motive – instead, the act of painting public infrastructure is simply treated as an illegal alteration of property.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND DEBATES:
Indian judges have spoken of graffiti, but not exactly in those words. No Supreme Court ruling has been delivered, it explicitly states that wall writing is political free speech.[12], and no blanket prohibition is in place on it. Judges’ comments and judgments inform us how the law perceives this question:
Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) v. Delhi (2020)[13]– Students graffitied slogans on walls in Shaheen Bagh and Jamia Millia Islamia during anti-CAA protests. Delhi High Court explained that the streets outside the university “came alive with rainbow-hued graffiti for weeks.” Although the Court primarily spoke about the right to protest and obstructing roads, it implicitly accepted graffiti as an expression of objection. the Supreme Court ruled that Article 19(1)(a) is extremely important in a democratic regime. It enables citizens to protest and voice their dissent. But the Court also stated that citizens have duties, such as not bringing about large disturbances in public order
Delhi High Court, DUSU Elections (2024) – In an election war, the Delhi High Court severely censured student leaders for putting up graffiti and posters on walls. The court directed them to remove all campaign graffiti, paint over the defaced walls, and not count votes until they did so. The ruling stated that street posters and graffiti were illegal vandalism, not free speech, and it held candidates responsible for repairing public property[14].
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON GRAFFITI LAW:
Graffiti has been viewed as mere vandalism for years, but courts around the world are finally recognizing its artistic and expressive worth. The 5Pointz case (Castillo v. G&M Realty, 2018)[15], filed by 21 aerosol artists who sued a real estate developer for destroying their murals in Queens, New York, was a breakthrough in the United States. The federal court ruled $6.75 million under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 1990, which grants artists “moral rights” of identification and protection on private property, no less. The court ruled that destroying murals of “recognized stature” violated these rights, setting a valuable precedent for the protection of street art.[16].
Graffiti as a medium of self-expression was also preserved in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)[17]. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a hate symbol law in this instance because it was aimed at particular content. This once more demonstrated that the First Amendment protects even offensive symbolic speech, such as political graffiti.
There cannot be a VARA law in the UK, but graffiti is part of intellectual property and defamation law cases. Banksy, whose real identity is unknown to the public, has been using the law to protect his work from being copied without permission, and the courts have been on his side. Companies have been kept from replicating his murals, and his company, Pest Control, helps protect his rights.[18].
Graffiti does exist with a plethora of laws in different parts of the globe. In Singapore, there are harsh punishments, and graffiti is banned. In Paris, cities hold on to murals because they are a part of their culture. India is in between; local laws ban graffiti, but they are not too harsh and are more art event-friendly. Indian courts have yet to accept graffiti as a form of freedom of expression or property rights, but changing public opinions may lead to new laws.[19].
CONCLUSION:
Graffiti is a test case of critical questions of free speech versus property rights. In India, it is mostly seen as a crime, property damage, no matter the message. Graffiti, however, has also been a vehicle for the voiceless to be heard, from the Delhi protest walls to street art internationally, providing a clear way of expressing dissent and political views.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution safeguards political speech but not this type of street art. This raises a very significant question: ought free speech liberties encompass offensive public art?
Not all graffiti is created equal—political murals are not the same as obscene tagging. The authorities should think about legal “free walls” or artist registration schemes rather than criminalizing all. Muralism as political communication in the majority of societies has its contemporary counterpart in graffiti.
There are free speech and property rights to be taken into account by courts. Artists would be forced underground, and criticism silenced by excessive regulation. A good policy could keep the peace and encourage productive dialogue in the community.
Author(s) Name: Bandi Jathin Sri V Sai Vignesh (Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University)
References:
[1] Bajoria J, ‘Stifling Dissent’ (Human Rights Watch, 28 March 2023) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/25/stifling-dissent/criminalization-peaceful-expression-india#:~:text=The%20Indian%20authorities%20routinely%20use,attempt%20to%20clampdown%20on%20critics> accessed 22 May 2025
[2] Lerman C, ‘Protecting Artistic Vandalism: Graffiti and Copyright Law’ (NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, 2 March 2019) <https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/vol-2-no-2-2-lerman/> accessed 22 May 2025
[3] The Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a)
[4] The Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2)
[5] Kamdar M, ‘Do Indians Have Freedom of Speech?’ (Pacific Council on International Policy, 23 April 2018) <https://www.pacificcouncil.org/newsroom/do-indians-have-freedom-speech#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20freedom%20of,or%20incitement%20to%20an%20offence> accessed 22 May 2025
[6] The Constitution of India 1950, art 19(1)(a)
[7] The Constitution of India 1950, art 19(2)
[8] Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 (India) s 143(1)
[9] Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007 (India), s 3(1)
[10] Indian Penal Code, s 425-427.
[11] Delhi Metro Railways Act 2002, s 72.
[12] Cjpadmin, ‘How Free Are All Indians to Exercise Their Right to Peacefully Protest under Article 19?’ (CJP, 3 September 2024) <https://cjp.org.in/how-free-are-all-indians-to-exercise-their-right-to-peacefully-protest-under-article-19/#:~:text=On%20October%207%2C%202020%2C%20Supreme,observed%20that> accessed 22 May 2025
[13] AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4704
[14] Srivastava B, ‘Delhi High Court Allows Dusu Elections; Orders Counting of Votes Be Stopped until Posters, Graffiti Are Removed’ (Bar and Bench – Indian Legal news) <https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-allows-dusu-elections-counting-of-votes-stopped-posters-graffiti-removed> accessed 24 May 2025
[15] 950 F.3d 155 (2020)
[16] Milena Ciric, ‘Graffiti (Global)’ (Graffiti (Global) – Global Informality Project) <https://www.in-formality.com/wiki/index.php?title=Graffiti_%28Global%29#:~:text=In%20many%20countries%20worldwide%20graffiti,constitutes%20a%20valid%20art%20form.> accessed 24 May 2025
[17] 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
[18] Nandita S, ‘Street Art, Graffiti, and Indian Copyright Law (Chapter 17) – the Cambridge Handbook of Copyright in Street Art and Graffiti’ (Cambridge Core) <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-handbook-of-copyright-in-street-art-and-graffiti/street-art-graffiti-and-indian-copyright-law/7185405CD3D697E36549A11AA95882B9> accessed 24 May 2025
[19] Kim, Chelsea, ‘An Examination of Graffiti Protection and the Social Obligation Theory of Property Comments’ (HeinOnline.org) <https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/emint36&id=557&collection=journals&index=> accessed 24 May 2025
