Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
WPCrl.No.2089 of 2026|WPMP.Crl.No.757 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Kumaraguru
For the Respondents: Arun Anbumani
The right to carry and hoist the National Flag is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and a fundamental duty under Article 51A(a). Police cannot arbitrarily restrict such expressions of national sentiment using SOPs intended only for large-scale gatherings exceeding 5000 participants.
Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rights - Right to fly and carry the National Flag - Right to fly the National Flag is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). (Para 9)
(B) Fundamental Duties - Respect for National Flag - Article 51A(a) mandates every citizen to respect the National Flag, making the act of carrying the flag both a fundamental right and a fundamental duty. (Para 10, 11)
(C) Right to Assemble - Peaceful Processions - The right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) includes the right to carry the National Flag during rallies as an expression of national sentiment. (Para 11)
(D) Administrative Law - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Public Gatherings - Application of SOP for regulation of public gatherings is limited to instances where participants exceed 5000; applying such restrictions to smaller gatherings for the purpose of honoring the National Flag is arbitrary. (Para 18)
Issues: Whether the police can arbitrarily deny permission for a rally to respect the National Flag on grounds of law and order and the applicability of the State's SOP for public gatherings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for a tricolour flag yatra was rejected by police citing law and order concerns. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the national flag is a symbol of national identity that deserves respect and police support. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. right to carry the national flag is a fundamental right under art 19(1)(a) and a duty under art 51a(a). (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. sops for public gatherings apply only to crowds exceeding 5000 and cannot be used to arbitrarily restrict smaller rallies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. permission granted for the rally on an alternate route and the impugned rejection order set aside. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
PRAYER
To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the fourth respondent bearing Na.Ka.No.23 U.A/Kattur Division/Ko Ma dated 12.08.2026, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct the Tricolour Flag Yatra on 13.08.2026 from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. along the alternate route proposed in the representation dated 11.08.2026, subject to such reasonable conditions as may be imposed by the respondents in accordance with law and thus render justice.
ORDER
Heard Mr.A.Kumaraguru for petitioner and Mr.Arun Anbumani for respondents.
2.The petitioner claims to be a member and the Coimbatore District President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as BJP). It is his plea that the BJP is proposing to conduct various programmes throughout the country as a part of the celebrations connected with the Independence Day. The petitioner’s unit proposed to conduct a Tricolor Flag Yatra in Coimbatore City on 13.08.2026. In pursuance to this proposal, the petitioner sought permission from the 3rd respondent to commence the Flag Yatra from 04.00 PM to 07.00 PM on 13.08.2026. The said application was rejected by the 3rd respondent stating that the route proposed by the petitioner if adopted for the Flag Yatra, would result in breach of peace, cause inconvenience to the public as well as create a law and order problem. It was further recorded in the impugned order that in case the petitioner applies to conduct his Flag Yatra from the Women Polytechnic College Junction to VOC Park, it could be considered.
3. In order to arrive at these conclusions, the 3rd respondent placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.5, Home (Police-VIII) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu dated 05.01.2026 (wrongly mentioned as G.O.Ms.No.8 in the impugned order) and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.43333 of 2025, etc. batch dated 19.12.2025 and the proceedings of the District Collector, Coimbatore, in connection with the order of this Court as mentioned above.
Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.
4. The counsel reiterated their contentions which they have placed in the affidavit and in the impugned order.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent reminds this Court of the famous incident on the banks of the Noyyal river in the old Coimbatore District, namely, as to how one jpUg;g{u; Fkud; lost his life on account of upholding the Indian National Flag during the Independence Movement. India was then under the rule of men and not rule of law as it is now. The British Colonial system could not accept a native could protest and as an expression of his nationalistic feeling to carry a flag and assert Independence. Fkud;, also known as “bfhofhj;j Fkud;” was mercilessly beaten up by the police and finally, he succumbed to injuries. Till the last moment, he refused to lay down the Flag. What physical assaults could not detest – prevent the Flag from being carried – is being done so under the impugned order. Fortunately, the courts and the Constitution are there to prevent it.
6. Fast forwarding the situation 79 years after this Country has obtained Independence, it is the intention of the petitioner to implement the policy that has been developed by his p
