Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against School Headmistress for Not Lowering National Flag After Sunset. Failure to Lower Flag After Sunset Does Not Attract Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 as It Does Not Constitute Insult or Disrespect.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Dr. Varsha Raj Salunke, was the Head Mistress of First Expression School. On 26th January 2018, she hoisted the National Flag on Republic Day but failed to lower it after sunset. On 27th January 2018, PSI Poonam Shivaji Patil of CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad lodged an FIR (Crime No. 32 of 2018) against her under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The applicant filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that she was innocent and falsely implicated. She argued that Section 2 of the Act was not attracted as not lowering the flag after sunset does not amount to any insult, dignity, or honour of the National Flag, and the Flag Code does not prescribe any punishment for such omission. The State objected on the ground that not lowering the flag after sunset shows disrespect to the National Flag. The Court heard both sides. The Court examined Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which penalizes acts of insult or indignity to the National Flag. The Court noted that the Flag Code of India provides guidelines for display of the flag but does not prescribe any punishment for failure to lower it after sunset. The Court held that mere omission to lower the flag after sunset does not constitute an intentional insult or indignity to the National Flag and therefore does not attract Section 2 of the Act. The Court quashed the FIR and allowed the application.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 - Section 2 - The applicant, a school headmistress, hoisted the National Flag on Republic Day but failed to lower it after sunset. The FIR alleged offence under Section 2 of the Act. The Court held that mere omission to lower the flag after sunset does not amount to any insult or indignity to the National Flag and does not attract Section 2 of the Act. The Flag Code of India does not prescribe any punishment for such omission. The FIR was quashed. (Paras 1-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether failure to lower the National Flag after sunset amounts to an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR (Crime No. 32 of 2018) registered against the applicant under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Law Points

  • Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act
  • 1971 requires intentional insult or indignity to National Flag
  • mere omission to lower flag after sunset does not constitute offence
  • Flag Code of India does not prescribe punishment for such omission
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (02) 27

Criminal Application No. 440 of 2018

2018-02-26

Prasanna B. Varale, Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi

Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Mr. S. W. Mundhe

Dr. Varsha w/o Raj Salunke

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR

Remedy Sought

Quashing of FIR lodged against the applicant under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

Filing Reason

Applicant failed to lower the National Flag after sunset on Republic Day, leading to FIR alleging insult to National Flag

Issues

Whether failure to lower the National Flag after sunset amounts to an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant: Mere omission to lower the flag after sunset does not amount to any insult or indignity to the National Flag; Flag Code does not prescribe punishment for such omission; Section 2 of the Act is not attracted. Respondent: Not lowering the flag after sunset shows disrespect to the Indian National Flag, thus Section 2 of the Act is attracted.

Ratio Decidendi

Mere omission to lower the National Flag after sunset does not constitute an intentional insult or indignity to the National Flag and does not attract Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The Flag Code of India does not prescribe any punishment for such omission.

Judgment Excerpts

Not lowering the flag at nighttime i.e. after sunset is no violence and it does not amount to any insult, dignity and the honour of the National Flag. Mere omission to lower the flag after sunset does not amount to any offence as the Flag Code does not prescribe for any punishment.

Procedural History

FIR lodged on 27-01-2018 under Crime No. 32 of 2018 at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. Applicant filed Criminal Application No. 440 of 2018 under Section 482 CrPC before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Court heard the matter on 26-02-2018 and passed oral judgment allowing the application and quashing the FIR.

Acts & Sections

  • Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: Section 2
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against School Headmistress for Not Lowering National Flag After Sunset. Failure to Lower Flag After Sunset Does Not Attract Section 2 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 as It Does Not Constitute Insul...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Enhances Compensation for Pillion Rider in Motorcycle Accident — Income Notionally Assessed at Rs.6,000 per Month for Non-Earning Housewife. The court held that a housewife's notional income should be reasonably assessed and futu...