Standing In Pranaam With A Smile Is No Insult | Patna High Court Quashes Complaint Against Bihar Chief Minister Over National Anthem Row
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Patna Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha quashed the criminal complaint and consequential notice issued against the petitioner in connection with alleged misconduct during the National Anthem at a public event. The Court held that the act of standing with folded hands and a smiling face during the anthem did not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. It further found that the complaint lacked essential procedural compliance under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Accordingly, the Court set aside the entire proceedings, including the issuance of notice by the trial court.
The matter arose from a complaint filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, alleging that on 20 March 2025, during a broadcast of the inauguration event for the World Cup Sepak Takra at Patliputra Stadium, Patna, the petitioner was seen disturbing a nearby person and performing gestures described as “Pranaam” while the National Anthem was being played. The complainant asserted that the conduct of the petitioner was offensive and amounted to an insult to the anthem under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The petitioner, currently holding the office of the Chief Minister of Bihar, sought quashing of the complaint and the subsequent notice issued by the Judicial Magistrate, contending that the initiation of criminal proceedings was procedurally flawed and motivated by political considerations.
According to submissions made by Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General appearing for the petitioner, the complaint was filed on 22 March 2025 during the absence of the regular Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the matter was taken up by an In-charge Magistrate, Sri Mayank Kumar Pandey. It was argued that the learned Magistrate exercised powers under Section 212 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) to transfer the matter to his own file and, without examining the complainant on oath or recording witness statements as required under Section 223, proceeded to issue a notice against the petitioner as a “proposed accused”.
Mr. Shahi further contended that the issuance of notice without following the prescribed examination procedure violated the statutory requirements and rendered the proceedings unsustainable. He pointed out that Section 223(1) of the B.N.S.S. mandates that the complainant and any present witnesses must be examined on oath before cognizance can be taken, unless the complaint is in writing by a public servant or the case is transferred under Section 212 following such examination.
Moreover, it was submitted that the allegations made in the complaint were politically motivated and intended to tarnish the image of the petitioner in light of the upcoming state assembly elections. The complaint failed to name the individual who was allegedly disturbed by the petitioner’s actions, raising questions about the verifiability of the core allegation.
In addition, it was argued that the petitioner’s presence at the event was in his official capacity as the Chief Minister, and thus, any proceedings against him required adherence to Section 218 of the B.N.S.S., which mandates protection for public servants acting in discharge of their official duties.
On the other hand, the complainant, represented by Mr. Akash Shankar, maintained that the inauguration of a sporting event could not be considered an official duty of the Chief Minister and submitted that the petitioner could raise his defence before the trial court. However, he conceded that the name of the individual allegedly disturbed was not mentioned in the complaint.
The Court received the record of the complaint dated 22 March 2025, where the complainant described the petitioner as standing with a smiling face and performing “Pranaam” gestures during the National Anthem. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner repeatedly disturbed the person standing next to him.
Upon service of notice to the complainant on 18 April 2025, the matter was taken up for final consideration by the High Court.
The Court recorded that “the entire complaint, along with notice dated 04.04.2025 issued to ‘proposed accused’ appears contrary to established principles of law, by ignoring legal provisions as available under sections 223 & 226 of the B.N.S.S.”
It observed that “without examining the complainant on oath and prosecution witnesses, the finding of learned Magistrate as to proceed further and therefore to issue notice to the petitioner as ‘proposed accused’ is totally unfounded and misconceived.”
Addressing the procedural irregularity, the Court stated that “Section 223 of the B.N.S.S. mandates that while taking cognizance of an offence, the complainant shall be examined upon oath along with witnesses present, unless exceptions under the statute apply.”
Regarding the status of the petitioner, the Court noted: “Ministers, particularly the head of the Cabinet not only leads the Cabinet but also undertakes various additional responsibilities including attending public events, meetings and conferences, many of which may be scheduled beyond regular working hours.”
It added: “The petitioner was present at the inaugural function of the ‘World Cup Sepak Takra’ at Patliputra Stadium, Patna, in the capacity of Chief Minister. If petitioner was not the Chief Minister, he had no occasion to inaugurate the event.”
Addressing the act itself, the Court found: “The complainant himself disclosed that at the time of singing of the national anthem, the petitioner was standing and was doing ‘Pranaam’ with a smiling face. This admitted conduct shows only high respect for the national anthem.”
It further stated: “Folding hand in ‘Pranaam Mudra’ in standing position and ‘smiling face’ cannot be construed by any prudent imagination that it was the insult of the ‘National Anthem’.”
As to the unverified disturbance allegation, the Court remarked: “The other part of the allegation was that the petitioner was disturbing the person who was standing next to him in the row, who could be the best witness, but the name of such a person was not disclosed in the complaint petition.”
The Court also cited precedent, referencing G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram and noted: “The pivotal inquiry is whether the impugned act is reasonably connected to the discharge of official duty. If the act is wholly unconnected, the requirement of sanction is obviated.”
In conclusion, the Court held: “The observation of the learned Magistrate is completely perverse on this issue that the presence of the petitioner in the inaugural event was not in the capacity of a public servant being Chief Minister of the State.”
The Court found that the complaint and the notice dated 04.04.2025 issued to the petitioner as the proposed accused were contrary to the established principles of law, having overlooked the procedural requirements under Sections 223 and 226 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
It held that the entire complaint, including the notice and any consequential proceedings, stood quashed. The petition seeking quashing of the proceedings was formally allowed. The Court further directed that a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the concerned trial court without delay.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate (Advocate General), Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Nausheen Fatma, Advocate, Mr. Atul Anjan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP, Mr. Akash Shankar, Advocate
Case Title: Nitish Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr
Case Number: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25589 of 2025
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
[Read/Download order]
