The Patna High Court held that merely folding hands in ‘Pranaam Mudra’ in standing position and smiling face cannot be construed as an insult to the National Anthem under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, while quashing a complaint against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar in a petition filed by him.

A complaint was filed against the Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, alleging that during the inauguration of the World Cup Sepak Takra event, he was seen standing in “Pranaam Mudra” with a smiling face, and disturbing the person next to him while the National Anthem was being played.

A Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed, “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.”

Senior Advocate P.K. Shahi represented Nitish Kumar, while APP Bhanu Pratap Singh represented the State and Advocate Akash Shankar appeared for the original complainant.

Brief Facts

Nitish Kumar was invited to inaugurate the event of World Cup Sepak Takra, wherein, during the singing of the National Anthem, he was in a standing position and was doing “Pranaam” with a smiling face. Resultantly, a complaint was filed alleging that such conduct is an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 and has hurt the sentiments of the complainant.

The Petitioner contended that the complaint was politically motivated. Furthermore, the Magistrate exercised the power in a hurried manner as the issuance of notice to the Petitioner as “proposed accused” without examination of the complainant upon oath, is illegal on its face in view of section 223(1) of the BNSS.

It was also the contention of the Petitioner that he was present at the event in the capacity of Chief Minister of Bihar to inaugurate the event; thus, his presence at the event cannot be distinguished from his official function. Therefore, it was submitted that holding the Petitioner not as a public servant for the alleged event is bad in the eyes of the law.

Court’s Observation

The Orissa High Court perused Section 223 of BNSS and emphasised that while taking cognizance of an offence, the complainant and witnesses, if any, shall be examined upon oath. “Having such a legal position, 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”, the Court said.

The Court referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Suby Antony Vs. R1 & Ors. (2025), wherein it was observed that the plain language of the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS provides that after the complaint is filed, the Magistrate should first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath and thereafter, if the Magistrate proceeds to take cognisance of the offence, opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the accused.

After referring to other judgements and Sections 223 and 226 of the BNSS the court held that “notice issued to “proposed accused” i.e. petitioner appears contrary to established principles of law, by ignoring legal provisions as available under sections 223 & 226 of the B.N.S.S., which prima-facie not appear to be taken care of by the learned Judicial Magistrate”.

Accordingly, the Patna High Court allowed the quashing petition and set aside the complaint.

Cause Title: Nitish Kumar V. State of Bihar

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate (AG), Advocates Amish Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar, Nausheen Fatma, Atul Anjan

Opposite Party: Advocates Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP, Akash Shankar

Click here to read/download Judgment


Patna High CourtJustice Chandra Shekhar Jha

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.