THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The flex war among supporters of senior Congress leaders projecting chief ministerial candidates has turned into a major challenge for local bodies across the state, which had only recently completed a massive clean-up drive under the green protocol after the assembly elections.
The uncertainty over who will head the new government has left LSGIs in a dilemma over taking action against the growing number of flex boards put up by supporters of senior Congress leaders.
“During the election period, there was a clear regulatory mechanism and the Election Commission had the authority to enforce strict controls. Now the election code of conduct is over, action depends largely on the support and political will of the government.
The authorities of local bodies are scared to remove the flex boards owing to the ongoing uncertainties surrounding the CM candidate. Also, they are afraid of how the party workers will react if the boards are removed by them,” said a senior LSGD official.
The official said that the LSGIs are ultimately responsible for managing the large quantity of flex generated during this period. “Often no one claims ownership of the flex boards, making enforcement difficult. Local bodies can remove them, but unless there is a strong policy decision and political backing, the problem continues,” he added.
Amicus Curiae and environmental lawyer Harish Vasudevan said the absence of a full-fledged government should not become a reason for inaction against illegal flex boards. “Who forms the government or which party comes to power has no bearing on judicial orders or government directives regulating unauthorised hoardings.
During election period, enforcement was coordinated by the EC effectively. Now, with only a caretaker government in place, if there are violations of court orders or existing rules, it is for the chief secretary to take a call,” he said.
According to him, the chief secretary, as the senior-most executive authority overseeing the administration, has both the responsibility and the authority to ensure that court orders are implemented uniformly.
“If officials fear that removing a particular leader’s flex board could invite allegations of bias, the chief secretary must provide clear directions and protection. This is not a matter of political preference; it is simply the implementation of the rule of law,” he added.
