Introduction:

In Sri Venugopal B.C. v. The State of Karnataka and Another, Criminal Petition No. 11694 of 2024, the Karnataka High Court examined the scope and application of Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 while quashing an FIR registered against a Government High School Principal. The petitioner, who had served as Principal for nearly seven to eight years without blemish, was accused of disrespecting the Indian National Flag after a WhatsApp status circulated an image allegedly showing him standing with slippers on the Flag during Gandhi Jayanthi celebrations held on 02 October 2024. Acting on a complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 2 of the Act, which criminalizes acts such as burning, mutilating, defacing, trampling upon or otherwise showing disrespect to the National Flag or the Constitution of India. Challenging the FIR, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the image was digitally edited by a student without his knowledge or intent. Justice M Nagaprasanna, after considering the material on record, held that mens rea is a key ingredient for invoking Section 2 and that in the absence of deliberate intention or knowledge, continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of process. The FIR was accordingly quashed.

Arguments:

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire case rested upon a digitally altered image circulated through WhatsApp status updates by certain students. It was submitted that during the Gandhi Jayanthi celebration at the school premises, several photographs were taken, as is customary during national functions. Subsequently, a student edited one such photograph by superimposing the image of the petitioner onto a background depicting the National Flag, thereby creating the false impression that the Principal was standing upon it with slippers. The petitioner asserted that he had neither created nor circulated the image and had no knowledge of its existence until it was brought to his attention. It was contended that the mobile phone in question had been in the custody of students at the relevant time and that the concerned student had admitted to editing the photograph unknowingly. Emphasizing the statutory requirement under Section 2 of the Act, counsel argued that the offence requires a deliberate act of disrespect accompanied by intention. The absence of mens rea, according to the petitioner, rendered the FIR unsustainable. It was further submitted that the petitioner had an unblemished service record spanning nearly a decade as Principal and that there were no antecedents suggesting any propensity to insult national symbols. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents interpreting Section 2 to mean that inadvertent or unintentional acts do not attract penal liability. The petitioner maintained that continuation of investigation in such circumstances would cause irreparable harm to his reputation and professional standing.

The State, opposing the petition, contended that the image prima facie depicted the petitioner standing on the National Flag with slippers and that such depiction warranted thorough investigation. It was argued that whether the image was edited or genuine could only be conclusively determined through investigation, including forensic examination of digital evidence. The State submitted that the seriousness of allegations concerning disrespect to the National Flag necessitated careful scrutiny and that quashing the FIR at the threshold would preclude discovery of the truth. It was further argued that even if a student had edited the image, the role and responsibility of the petitioner required examination, especially in the context of a school environment where national symbols command utmost respect.

Judgment:

Justice M Nagaprasanna undertook a detailed analysis of Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 and emphasized that mens rea is the cornerstone of the offence. The Court observed that the statutory language criminalizes acts such as burning, defacing, trampling upon or otherwise showing disrespect to the National Flag in a public place or within public view. However, such acts must be accompanied by deliberate intention or conscious knowledge. Referring to the images placed on record, the Court noted that when the allegedly offending image was juxtaposed with the original photograph, it became evident that the petitioner’s image had been superimposed upon a separate background containing the National Flag. The Court recorded that the student concerned had admitted to editing the image and had explained that it was done unknowingly. The Judge observed that the editing could not ostensibly have been done by the petitioner himself and that there was inherent improbability in assuming that a school Principal with an unblemished record would deliberately trample upon the National Flag during a national celebration. The Court further noted that there were no antecedents or surrounding circumstances suggesting any intentional disrespect. Holding that the absence of mens rea was apparent and that the foundational requirement for constituting the offence was not satisfied, the Court deemed it appropriate to obliterate further investigation. It concluded that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to unwarranted harassment and misuse of penal law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.