Back
Allows BJP Tricolour Flag Rally, Rebukes Tamil Nadu Over Denial
The on Friday allowed the to conduct a "Tricolour Flag Yatra" in Coimbatore city, while sharply disapproving of the State government's refusal to grant permission for the Independence Day-related event. A single-judge Bench of Justice V Lakshminarayanan disposed of the writ petition after the party agreed to shift the rally to a location designated by the District Collector for large public gatherings. The court permitted the flag rally to be held on between 4 pm and 7 pm.
The case arose from a petition filed by J Ramesh Kumar, the BJP's Coimbatore city district president, challenging the administration's denial of permission for a yatra proposed on . What troubled the court was not merely the refusal, but the reason given: .
"Denial of permission to carry on a yatra on grounds of
has
,"
Justice Lakshminarayanan observed.
A Flag Under Which Everyone Stands
The court placed the controversy in a broader constitutional and symbolic context. It underscored that respect for the National Flag is not the preserve of any political party.
"Irrespective of the party to which one belongs, as long as he is under the Flag, he is bound to respect it. The police also function under the flag. As much as it is the duty of the petitioner, his party and every citizen of Coimbatore to respect the flag, the police also should respect the flag. If someone wants to respect the flag, instead of obstructing, the police should permit the same and, in fact, join them in respecting the flag."
The judge went on to express the hope that citizens would not be forced to approach the court merely to pay homage to their nation and its flag.
Referring to the State's submission that the rally could inconvenience local residents, the court said it found it "amusing" that the State believed a gathering to pay homage to the nation and its flag might cause inconvenience.
"Perhaps the police could remind the people who might be inconvenienced that the right to reside also exists because of the flag."
Tiruppur Kumaran's Land
The court also invoked local history to underline the incongruity of the denial. Coimbatore, the judge noted, is the land of Tiruppur Kumaran, a freedom fighter who died holding the Indian flag during a protest against British rule.
"Police saying the Indian Flag should not be carried? Without the flag, you'll not have your rights. It's sad. Land of Tiruppur Kumaran, who lost his life for carrying a flag, and you're not letting them carry the flag? Even in Kashmir, where there were protests, they're carrying flags."
The judge added,
"Or let the officer declare that Coimbatore is not part of India. Declare that it's part of Pakistan or Afghanistan and that carrying a flag is a sin. Irrespective of political colour, we should be proud of our flag."
This rhetorical comment reflected a deeper concern: that an event aimed at promoting nationalism and respect for the flag should not have been treated as a threat to .
State's Defence: SOP and Alternate Site
Responding for the State, Assistant Public Prosecutor denied that the government was taking sides. He submitted that the representation was not rejected outright; the party was asked to use another site earmarked for public meetings, particularly those exceeding 5,000 participants. He referred to a Standard Operating Procedure laid down by the High Court for public meetings and contended that a district administration must consider factors. He also pointed to an "unfortunate event" that had occurred last year after a party approached the court over a denied political meeting, and said the SOP was intended to prevent untoward incidents.
The court, however, was not persuaded that carrying the National Flag created a
problem.
"
problem for carrying the national flag? Even in J&K where the national flag could not be raised, they're now raising national flags,"
it observed.
Selective Application?
The court also questioned whether the State was applying its standards evenly. Noting that
had recently been denied permission for a bike rally, the court orally asked whether only the ruling
would be allowed to hold rallies.
"DK party shouldn't do a rally, BJP shouldn't carry flags, so only TVK should be allowed to rally?"
the court asked.
The prosecutor responded that the State was not taking sides and had merely asked the parties to choose an alternative designated location.
Law, Order, and : The Legal Divide
The judgment is significant because it demonstrates judicial unease with the conflation of "" with "" in the context of . Under Indian constitutional jurisprudence, guarantee the and the . These rights may be subjected only to in the interests of, among other things, the , , or .
A mere concern, in the sense of routine police supervision, is not by itself a ground to deny a peaceful procession. The state must point to a genuine threat to or to the security of the state. Here, no specific material was placed before the court to suggest that a flag-carrying procession would lead to violence or disruption. Instead, the court was asked to defer to a general administrative apprehension. That, the judge indicated, was unacceptable when the object of the gathering was to honour the National Flag.
The court's observations also carry an implicit warning against the partisan use of licensing powers. Although the State denied taking sides, the oral remarks comparing the treatment of the BJP and with that of the ruling party suggest that justifications cannot be used as a smokescreen for political selectivity. Authorities must apply the SOP uniformly and cannot treat an event as problematic merely because it is organised by a political opponent.
Implications for Police and Processions
For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of documenting concrete grounds when permission for a public meeting or rally is refused. Vague references to "" or potential inconvenience to residents are unlikely to satisfy judicial scrutiny when are at stake. The judgment may also encourage organisers of patriotic or flag-related events to seek judicial intervention if they are denied space despite offering to comply with designated venues and time limits.
The designation of a particular site for meetings involving more than 5,000 persons is a practical administrative measure. But the court's reasoning suggests that such a designation should not become an instrument to derail a legitimate event. Where an alternative site is provided, and the organisers agree, the state's concerns can be accommodated. Where no such agreement is possible, the refusal must be backed by material that would justify a restriction on a constitutional right.
There is also a broader civic message in the judgment: the National Flag is a unifying symbol, not a partisan marker. The court insisted that the police, as much as citizens, owe their allegiance to the flag and should facilitate its honouring rather than obstruct it. That observation may influence how district administrations handle future "Tricolour Yatra" requests, particularly around national holidays.
Conclusion
By allowing the BJP to hold the rally at the alternative venue, the balanced administrative convenience with constitutional rights. But its expressed "shock" at the original denial will likely resonate beyond Coimbatore. The case serves as a reminder that the right to assemble, including for patriotic purposes, is not a concession granted by the State. It is a fundamental right, and the State's duty is to protect it—not to create unnecessary obstacles.
The court's final observation captured the essence of the dispute:
"It is hoped that in future police will ensure that people are not made to approach the court for paying homage to their nation and its flag."
