Back
Bombay HC Frees 85-Year-Old from Flag 'Insult' Case: Intent, Not Accident, Key to National Honour Act
In a relief for an elderly resident, the has quashed a nine-year-old FIR against 85-year-old V.K. Narayanan, accused of disrespecting the national flag by displaying it inverted during Republic Day celebrations at his Mumbai housing society. Justice Ashwin D. BhoBe ruled that mere presence at the event does not constitute an offence under (4)(l) of the , emphasizing the need for proven —intent to insult.
The single-judge bench, in its order ( VK Narayanan vs State of Maharashtra , 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 80), noted Narayanan's advanced age, immobility, and an unconditional apology tendered earlier, now 89 years old and residing in Kerala.
A Patriotic Ceremony Turns Controversial
On —Republic Day—members of in Chembur, Mumbai, gathered on the terrace for a flag-hoisting at 9:15 a.m., attended by society members and children. The group dispersed afterward, leaving the terrace gate open. Hours later, police arrived around 4 p.m., observing the tricolour inverted (saffron down).
registered FIR No. 13/2017 against Narayanan and five other society members under (4)(l) , which penalizes intentionally displaying the flag with saffron downwards in a public place. A chargesheet led to Case No. 460/PS/2017 before the . Charges were framed in but quashed by in , prompting this petition under .
Petitioner's Defence: No Hand in Hoisting, No Malice
argued the FIR lacked ingredients for the offence: no evidence Narayanan hoisted the flag, issued instructions, or acted intentionally. He stressed the terrace wasn't a "public place," absence of independent witnesses, and Narayanan's status as a senior citizen suffering age-related ailments. An apology was filed , to underscore no disrespect intended.
Prosecution's Reliance: Watchman's Account Sufficient?
countered, citing watchman Deepak Jaysingh's statement naming office-bearers, members, and children present. She claimed this established the offence.
Dissecting Disrespect: Supreme Court Precedents Light the Way
Justice BhoBe delved into , which prohibits acts showing disrespect to the flag in public view, with targeting intentional inverted display. Drawing from Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (2004), the court affirmed the right to fly the flag under as fundamental but qualified, with the Flag Code guiding dignity—not as enforceable law.
Key was
:
"To constitute the offence under
(4)(l), the display...must be intentional."
The FIR only alleged presence; watchman's statement omitted Narayanan hoisting or directing it. Echoing
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
(1992), the court invoked quashing powers to curb process abuse.
The magistrate's cognizance order—deemed a "rubber-stamped" non-speaking order—was faulted per Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2023), lacking judicial application of mind.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"Neither the statement of Deepak Jaysingh nor any material collected by the prosecution...indicates that the Applicant hoisted or displayed the Indian National Flag...or was involved in its display.""To constitute the offence under (4)(l), the display of the Indian National Flag in an inverted manner must be intentional. Thus, to cause insult or disrespect...would be required."
"The Applicant’s mere presence at the place of hoisting of the Flag...would not amount to an offence under (4)(l)."
"The order dated 03.07.2017...is a ...Taking cognisance is a judicial act that requires the ."
Final Verdict: FIR, Chargesheet Quashed—No Costs
The court allowed the application, quashing the FIR, chargesheet (Case No. 460/PS/2017), and cognizance order solely against Narayanan. This sets a precedent: symbolic oversights sans intent won't sustain prosecution under the National Honour Act, sparing innocents—especially vulnerable seniors—from protracted trials. Future cases may scrutinize evidence for active role and intent, balancing flag reverence with fair process.
