Karnataka High Court Quashes Flag Insult FIR Against School Principal Over Morphed Photo Showing Him Standing On National Flag
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed an FIR against a government school principal accused of insulting the National Flag under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. The case concerned a WhatsApp-circulated image showing the principal standing on the flag during a school event, but the Court noted the image had been edited by a student and held that no deliberate intent could be attributed to the principal.
The petitioner, Principal of Bagalagunte Government High School, Bengaluru, invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of an FIR registered for an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. The second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that during Gandhi Jayanthi celebrations on 02.10.2024, a WhatsApp status displayed the petitioner standing with slippers on the National Flag.
The petitioner contended that students had accessed his mobile phone, edited an image, and circulated it without his knowledge or consent. He asserted absence of intention to insult the National Flag and relied on a written apology by a student who admitted editing and posting the image. The State opposed the petition, contending that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence and that disputed questions of fact required investigation.
The Court examined the ingredients of Section 2 of the Act and the requirement of intentional disrespect to constitute an offence.
The Court extracted the statutory provision and recorded that “Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to or brings into contempt… the Indian National Flag… shall be punished.” It further recorded that Explanation 4(i) provides that “allowing the Indian National Flag to touch the ground or the floor or trail in water intentionally would become an offence under Section 2.”
Referring to judicial precedents, the Court observed that “mens rea becomes the key ingredient of an offence under Section 2 of the Act.” It noted that in the absence of intention, the offence would not stand attracted.
On examining the photographs placed on record, the Court recorded: "If the two are seen in juxtaposition, it becomes clear that a picture of the petitioner taken elsewhere is edited and placed on the National Flag. It ostensibly cannot be by the petitioner himself, but as admitted, by the student. The petitioner has also given plausible explanation for the students so doing. Even otherwise there are no antecedents of the petitioner that would entail investigation in the case at hand. He is a teacher who has been the Principal of the said institution for the last 7 to 8 years and not had an incident of the kind that is now projected. Therefore, holding no mens rea and inherent improbability in doing the said act, as interpreted by various High Courts, I deem it appropriate to obliterate further investigation into the matter.”
The Court also recorded: “I do not find any deliberate act on the part of the petitioner in the alleged crime.”
The Court directed that “Criminal Petition is allowed.” It further ordered that “FIR in Crime No.377 of 2024 pending before the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore city stands quashed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Smt. Radhika K., Advocate for Sri Thimmegowda N., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri T.R. Ramakrishna, Advocate.
Case Title: Sri Venugopal B.C. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.11694 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
