- Case
- V K NARAYANAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 23-02-2026)
- Law
- Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Constitution of India.
Facts: On Republic Day 2017, a residential society in Mumbai conducted a flag-hoisting ceremony. Later that afternoon, police officers discovered the National Flag was flying in an inverted position on the society's terrace. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the Applicant, an elderly resident, and others under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The prosecution relied on the statement of the society's watchman, which merely placed the Applicant at the scene during the ceremony. The Applicant, now aged 89 and suffering from age-related ailments, sought to quash the proceedings, having already tendered an unconditional apology.Procedural Posture: The Applicant approached the Bombay High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the successor to Section 482 of the CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet. This followed a previous revision where the Sessions Court had already set aside the framing of charges.Issue: Whether the mere presence of a person at a flag-hoisting ceremony where the flag is found inverted is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and whether the Magistrate's order taking cognisance was legally sustainable.Holding: No, the conviction cannot be sustained as the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. The High Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet, and the cognisance order.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 2(4)(l) of the Act requires an intentional display of the flag in an inverted manner. The evidence failed to show that the Applicant himself hoisted the flag or intended to insult the national honour; mere presence does not equate to criminal liability. Furthermore, the Court criticized the Magistrate's "rubber-stamped" cognisance order, noting it was a non-speaking order that lacked application of mind. Relying on "Bhajan Lal" and "Lalankumar Singh", the Court held that dragging a citizen through a criminal trial without a prima facie case and a reasoned cognisance order constitutes an abuse of the legal process.
