HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
P.V.JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC/8035/2015
National Flag - Offence Under Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act - Act Section List - Section 2
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were accused of failing to lower the National Flag after sunset during Independence Day celebrations, allegedly violating Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acts of the petitioners did not constitute an offence under Section 2, referencing precedents that clarified the lack of legal basis for the prosecution. There was no intention to dishonour the flag.
Issues: Whether the failure to lower the National Flag after sunset amounts to an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that omissions that do not show intention to dishonour the flag do not constitute an offence under the Act, and highlighted judicial precedents that support this view.
Final Decision: The prosecution against the petitioners was quashed.
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.1684/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala alleging an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 . The prosecution case is that the petitioners did not lower the National Flag which was hoisted in connection with the 'Independence Day' celebrations at their co-operative society even after 9.30 p.m.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Amgonda Vithoba Pandhare v. Union of India and others[2012(4)
Bom. C.R.(Cri) 219] wherein it was held:
“Explanation 4 gives various instances of disrespect to the Indian National Flag. The offence of not lowering down the flag after sunset does not fall either in the various instances which are mentioned in Explanation 4 or in Section 2 of the said Act. The averments in the complaint, therefore, even if they are accepted at its face value, does not constitute an offence within the meaning of of the said Act.”
3. Their Lordships had relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Navin Jindal & another rendered in Civil Appeal No.453 of 2004 wherein it was held that the Flag Code contains executive instructions of the Central Government and, therefore, it is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is a model code of conduct to be followed compulsorily by all the citizens of India. Apart from that, penal consequences cannot be invited unless there is a statutory provision for the same.
4. Going by the decisions noted supra, it seems that the prosecution in this case is quite unnecessary. Apart from that, it seems that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to dishonour the National Flag. True that it was an omission on their part in lowering the National Flag after the prescribed time. The prosecution seems to be quite unnecessary and therefore, the same can be quashed. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to Annexure A1 Final Report in C.C.No.1684/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Cherthala, are hereby quashed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.