Student-Edited WhatsApp Image Of Principal With National Flag Lacks Intentional Insult: Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Principal
The fact that the image had been edited by students and circulated without the Principal’s knowledge, shows absence of mens rea
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a government school Principal under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, holding that a WhatsApp image allegedly showing him standing with his slippers on the National Flag, was edited by a student and did not disclose any intentional act of disrespect.
It found that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie establish intentional insult or trampling upon the National Flag by the petitioner, an essential ingredient under the Act. The assertion that the image had been edited by students and circulated without his knowledge could not be brushed aside, particularly in the absence of material demonstrating mens rea, and continuation of criminal proceedings, therefore, would amount to an abuse of process.
The complaint was lodged by the President of a Human Rights Protection Committee, who alleged that during Gandhi Jayanti celebrations on 02-10-2024, the picture in question was put on the WhatsApp status.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna while comparing the original photo of the Principal that was used to morph the picture, observed, “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 Bench further directed.
Advocate Radhika K. appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP appeared for the respondent.
The principal, in the matter, however, contended that his mobile phone had been with students at the time and that the image in question had been edited and circulated without his knowledge. He asserted that he had no intention whatsoever to disrespect the National Flag and that he held it in the highest regard. It was further argued that he had served as Principal for several years with an unblemished record and that the complaint was motivated.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the photograph prima facie showed the petitioner standing on the National Flag and that the matter required investigation. It was argued that whether the image was edited or not was a disputed question of fact that could not be examined at the stage of quashing.
After examining the statutory framework and judicial precedents across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Bench emphasised that Section 2 of the 1971 Act criminalises acts such as burning, mutilating, defacing, defiling, trampling upon, or otherwise intentionally showing disrespect to the National Flag in a public place or within public view. The provision, the Court noted, requires intentional disrespect as a core ingredient.
The Court referred to multiple decisions holding that mere technical or unintended lapses do not amount to an offence under Section 2 of the Act. It reiterated that the Flag Code, though containing guidelines for preserving dignity of the Flag, is not a penal statute, and criminal liability must strictly satisfy the ingredients of the Act.
The Court said that criminal prosecution under the Act cannot be set in motion merely on the basis of outrage or perception unless the statutory elements are clearly satisfied. In the absence of prima facie material disclosing intentional disrespect as contemplated under Section 2, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the principal were quashed.
Cause Title: Sri Venugopal B.C. v. The State Of Karnataka & Anr. CRIMINAL PETITION No.11694 OF 2024
Appearances:
Petitioner: Radhika K., Thimmego, Advocates.
Respondent: B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP, T.R. Ramakrishna, Advocates.