Can Facebook Posts Insulting the National Flag Be Excused? Allahabad HC Says No, Rejects Bail

The Allahabad High Court on September 8, 2025, rejected the bail application of a Muzaffar Nagar resident, Vasik Tyagi, who is accused of uploading anti-national posts on his Facebook account, including one showing a dog on the Indian National Flag.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, while dismissing the application, observed that the posts were "provocative, objectionable and capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public peace and order". Court stated that such acts are "hazardous for the society" and do not warrant any "sympathetical consideration".

"The said posts indicate inclination towards glorification of anti-national ideology, which cannot be ignored," court underscored.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on May 16, 2025, by Sub-Inspector Amit Kumar at Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar. The FIR was filed against Vasik Tyagi for offences under Sections 152, 192, 197(1), and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The complaint was based on a social media post that had come to the attention of the police, where Tyagi had allegedly shared a post in support of Pakistan, which read, "Kamran Bhatti Proud of You. Pakistan Zindabad". The FIR also cited another post in which the applicant had allegedly put the Indian National Flag on the ground and made a dog sit on it. According to the FIR, these posts were seen as anti-national and capable of hurting religious sentiments, potentially leading to a breach of peace.

The applicant's counsel, Advocate Atul Kumar, argued that Tyagi was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He claimed that Tyagi had neither uploaded nor liked any anti-national posts and had not compromised the country's sovereignty or integrity. He pointed out that the applicant had been in jail since June 7, 2025, and therefore, should be granted bail.

The State, represented by Additional Government Advocate Rabindra Kumar Singh strongly opposed the bail plea. The prosecution presented evidence gathered during the investigation, which linked the posts directly to the applicant's Facebook ID. Court was informed that details obtained from Meta, the parent company of Facebook, confirmed that specific IP addresses used to upload the posts were registered to the applicant's mobile phone number. The prosecution also stated that a mobile phone of Vivo company, which was used in the alleged crime, was recovered from the applicant's father and sent for forensic examination. Court also took note of the statements of two independent witnesses, Rampal and Ajeet, who stated that the applicant's actions could incite animosity on the basis of religious feelings.

The prosecution further highlighted the applicant's criminal history, noting two other cases registered against him: Case Crime No. 461 of 2020 under the Arms Act and Case Crime No. 454 of 2025 under Sections 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State argued that insulting the National Flag by any Indian citizen is a "matter of serious concerned," and therefore, the bail application should be rejected.

Court, after considering the arguments and examining the evidence, found that the social media posts were indeed uploaded by the applicant through his Facebook account. It noted that the applicant's counsel "could not give satisfactory reply about posting/uploading the aforesaid posts".

The bench specifically highlighted the applicant's comment on the post showing the insulted flag as a "matter of grave concern". The judgment stated, "Considering the materials available on record, it is apparent that the feelings of the applicant for this country i.e. India is not patriotic and prima-facie it appears that he had intentionally posted the said posts with a view to lower down the dignity of India".

Court's decision was also guided by the symbolic importance of the Indian National Flag. "The Indian National Flag is symbol of pride and patriotism. It represents the hope and aspiration of the people of India," the judgment stated, adding that every citizen must safeguard its dignity and honour.

Court made it clear that "any comment or insult" to the flag is a "punishable offence by law". It emphasized that individuals who are "directly or indirectly involved in maligning the image of our country (India) and National flag" are "hazardous for the society," and thus, are not entitled to "sympathetical consideration".

Thus, the bail application was rejected based on the gravity of the alleged offense, the potential impact on societal harmony, and the role assigned to the applicant in the crime.

Case Title: Vasik Tyagi v. State of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary (Home)

Order Date: September 8, 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh