Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by six men to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them for allegedly disrespecting the Tiranga, India’s national flag.

The allegation against the accused was that in a religious procession, they displayed the national flag with Quranic verses inscribed on it which meant 'only Allah is worth worshipping'. The case was registered under Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 at Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh.

The accused moved the high court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash the charges against them. They claimed the FIR filed in 2023 was nothing more than a targeted smear campaign, pointing to a lack of concrete evidence and asserting that the flag in question wasn’t even the Tiranga.

Their counsel argued that the flag was a mere fabrication, planted by the police after the fact, and witness statements were coerced under pressure.

However, the state’s Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) opposed the plea placing on record statements of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC which revealed that the accused had taken part in the religious procession and were carrying Tiranga in their hands.

The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar found force in the argument of the AGA and held that prima-facie the act of accused was punishable under Flag Code of India, 2002 and there was violation of Section 2 of Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 by them.

The Tiranga, India's National Flag, symbolizes the unity and diversity of the nation, transcending religious ethic and cultural differences. It is a unifying emblem representing the collective identity and sovereignty of India. Act of disrespect towards the Tiranga can have far-reaching social cultural implications, particularly in a diverse society like India, court said. 

It asserted that incidents like in the present case, can be exploited by the elements seeking to create communal discord or fuel misunderstandings between different communities and it is crucial to recognize that the actions of a few individuals should not be used to stigmatize an entire community.

Court further stated that questions of fact, such as the authenticity of the flag and the credibility of the witnesses, were matters to be adjudicated upon during the trial.

The high court noted that its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is limited and does not extend to examining the reliability of evidence or determining factual disputes.

Moreover, court found no substantial error or illegality in the lower court's proceedings or the summoning order, which would warrant its interference.

Accrodingly, court dismissed the plea. 

Case Title: Gulamuddin And 5 Others v. State of UP and Another