‘Smiling Is No Crime’: Patna High Court Quashes Case Against CM Nitish Kumar Over National Anthem Conduct

The complaint, filed by one Vikash Paswan, accused CM Kumar of talking to a person next to him and performing a 'pranaam' with a smiling face during the National Anthem, which the complainant claimed violated Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The matter snowballed after a magistrate in Begusarai took cognizance, issuing a notice against Kumar as a ‘proposed accused.’

However, the bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha termed the entire complaint and subsequent proceedings "baseless" and politically motivated.

Firstly, the high court noted that Section 223 of the BNSS provides that while taking cognizance of an offence, complainant shall be examined upon oath and the witnesses present, except in certain exceptional situations. However, in the present matter, the Magistrate proceeded to issue notice to the CM without examining the complainant on oath. It, therefore, held the findings of the Magistrate "unfounded and misconceived".

Court clarified that although the Magistrate had held that the CM's act was distinguished from his official duties, hence he was prima facie not treated as a public servant rendering Section 218 of the BNSS inapplicable, but it was a fact that Kumar was present at the inaugural function in the capacity of Chief Minister.

"If the petitioner was not the Chief Minister, he had no occasion to inaugurate the event and, therefore, his presence at the inaugural event, as aforesaid, cannot be distinguished by saying that his participation was not in capacity of a public servant as to import the protection of section 218 of the B.N.S.S.," court said.

Secondly, court noted that the complainant himself had stated that the CM was standing and doing “Pranaam” with a smiling face.

"This admitted conduct of the petitioner shows only high respect for the national anthem having a smiling face at the time of singing of the national anthem, merely 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'." court opined.

Lastly, on the allegation that CM Kumar was disturbing the person who was standing next to him in the row, court said that this person could be the best witness, but the name of such a person was not disclosed in the complaint petition, which made the allegation completely "baseless and frivolous, just to gain cheap popularity in politics by tarnishing the image of the petitioner".

Conclusively, court held that the entire complaint, along with the notice issued by the Magistrate, was contrary to established principles of law, as legal provisions available under sections 223 & 226 of the BNSS had also been ignored.

Therefore, it quashed the entire complaint with notice and the consequential proceedings.