Without verifying truthfulness of newspaper report, no P.I.L. should be filed.

S. Manikumar, J

1. A practicing lawyer and Executive Committee Member of Madurai Bar Association has filed this "pro bono publico" litigation seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to institute appropriate legal action against respondent No.6 in the interest of upholding the dignity of our National Flag on the basis of petitioners representation dated 18.02.2008 and for further orders.

2. Facts in brief are as follows:

On 26.01.2008, being the Republic day, the National Flag was hoisted on all public and Government Buildings and establishments. It was also hoisted in the premises of All Women Police Station, Thirupparamkundram, Madurai, on the said day and it was not lowered till 05.00 p.m., on 01.02.2008. When the petitioner personally indicated to the authorities, they assured of lowering it. But on 02.02.2008, it was reported in "Dhina Thanthi" newspaper. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Inspector of Police, Thirupparamkundram, Madurai, by lodging a complaint to take appropriate legal action against the 6th respondent. Excepting the 5th respondent, the other respondents acknowledged the registered notice of the petitioner dated 18.02.2008 and the 5th respondent has evaded service. Accordingly, the registered post was returned as not claimed on 25.02.2008. In these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition for the relief as stated supra.

3. Referring to Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and the guidelines of the Union of India, Part II, Section 1 (2.2)(XI) of the Flag Code of India, 2002 and other provisions, Mr. B.N. Rajamohamed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act of the 6th respondent in not lowering the National Flag after sun set and allowing the Flag to fly till 01.02.2008 has caused indignity to our National Flag and it squarely falls within the purview of Explanation 4 to Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and violative of the Flag Code of India.

4. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Yaswant Sharma reported in 2004 (2)SCC 510, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restriction placed by the Union of India in maintaining the Flag Code has to be strictly followed to preserve the dignity of our National Flag and violation thereof, by respondent No.6 has affronted the great tradition of Indian National Flag.

5. When the matter came up for admission, on instructions, Mr. Pala.Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that on receipt of an information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupparamkundram has called for an explanation from the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparamkundram, the 6th respondent herein. In her explanation submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupparamkundram, Sub Division Madurai, the 6th respondent has stated that she is working as Inspector of Police in All Women Police Station from 14.01.2008; that the National Flag is being hoisted daily in the morning and lowered in the evening by 6.00 p.m. On 26.01.2008, after hoisting the National Flag in the morning, sweets were distributed and the Flag was lowered in the evening by 6.00 p.m. She has denied the contents of the newspaper report that the flag was allowed to fly till 01.02.2008. She has further added that one Mr. Kathiresan, a part time press reporter working in Tamilmurasu Newspaper, under the guise of collecting news from the police, attempted to interfere with the investigation of criminal cases and made frequent telephone calls to her predecessor Smt. Rajamani failing which, he had threatened that news reports against the police department would be published. The 6th respondent, has further stated that as the above conduct was impermissible, he was suitably warned by her predecessor not to interfere with the investigation. For some time, t