The fundamental right to fly the National Flag is a qualified right subject to reasonable restrictions, and the preservation of the respect and dignity of the National Flag is essential. Mandamus cannot be issued without a legal right to compel the performance of a statutory duty.

1. This writ petition was filed asking for a mandamus against the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, not to allow Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka, 2nd respondent herein, hoisting Indian National Flag at the Office of Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka i.e., parallel to the Advocates' Association, Bangalore and to ensure enough solidarity, unity and integrity of the Advocates' Association and for a mandamus to the 2nd respondent, to participate in the Flag hoisting ceremony of the Advocates' Association, on the eve of Independence Day.

2. The petitioner, an advocate, appeared in person. On being asked by the Court, as to whether he had represented to the 1st respondent, to redress the grievance as against the intended action of the 2nd respondent, who is also a member of the 3rd respondent -Association, petitioner submitted that for want of time, he did not submit any representation and filed this petition because of urgency and also in view of the violation of the fundamental and statutory rights.

3. According to the petitioner, 2nd respondent violated the established norm of celebration of Independency Day and Republic Day, by the Advocates' Association. He submitted that a parallel function is being organized by the 2nd respondent, since, a Circular has been issued to all the Law Officers of the Government, to participate in the function, wherein, he would hoist the National Flag. Petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent by hoisting the National Flag, by organizing a separate function, than participating in the Flag hoisting ceremony of the Advocates' Association, has destroyed the unity and integrity of the Association. The petitioner submitted that he is astonished by the silence of the 3rd respondent, Sri K.N. Subba Reddy, the President of the Advocates' Association. Petitioner submitted that when there was a dispute between two communities in the matter of hoisting the National Flag at a place in Hubli, he had filed a writ petition and the dispute was resolved amicably.

4. The 2nd respondent is the Advocate General of Karnataka. He, in the said capacity has hoisted Indian National Flag separately on the previous Independence Day and Republic Day.

5. The question that arises for consideration is, whether a mandamus can lie against the 1st respondent, not to allow the hoisting of Indian National Flag near the Advocate General's office by the 2nd respondent?

6. In UNION OF INDIA Vs. NAVEEN JINDAL, (2004) 2 SCC 510, Mr. Naveen Jindal, being a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and in charge of the factory situated at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh, was flying the National Flag at the office premises and that he was not allowed to do so by the Government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code. Questioning the said action, a writ petition filed in the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of National Flag by Indian citizens, was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, the Union of India having filed the special leave petition, Apex Court held as follows:

"90. (i) Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation. (ii) The fundamental right to fly the National Flag is not an absolute right but a qualified one being subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. (iii) The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag. (iv) Flag Code although is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 19 thereof, it would not re