Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court in BhimSingh v The State of Karnataka and Another Criminal Petition No. 200201 of 2026 delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope of criminal liability under the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971. Justice Rajesh K Rai was hearing a petition filed by BhimSingh, a Second Division Assistant in the Gram Panchayat of Alloli village, Chittapur Taluk, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly hoisting the National Flag upside down during the Independence Day function on 15 August 2021. The FIR had been registered on the complaint of the Panchayat Development Officer of Alloli village alleging that due to the petitioner’s negligence, the National Flag was erroneously unfurled in reverse position. Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 2 of the 1971 Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court invoking its inherent powers to quash the proceedings, contending that the act was an unintentional mistake devoid of any intent to insult the National Flag.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner through his counsel contended that the entire complaint and the charge sheet materials clearly disclosed that the incident occurred due to an oversight and not out of any deliberate intention. It was submitted that on 15 August 2021, the petitioner had been deputed as the officer in charge of the flag hoisting ceremony. During the course of the function, the National Flag was mistakenly displayed with the saffron side down and was unfurled in that position. The counsel emphasized that all witness statements recorded during investigation uniformly indicated that the act was purely negligent and lacked any ulterior motive or intention to insult the National Flag. It was further argued that Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act requires intentional insult or indignity to attract penal consequences. Mere negligence or inadvertence, absent mens rea, cannot constitute the offence contemplated under the statute. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the petitioner is a government servant who holds the highest respect for national symbols and would have no conceivable reason to deliberately insult the National Flag during a public Independence Day celebration. Reliance was placed on the reasoning adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Tiwari v. State of M.P. wherein it was observed that no person of ordinary prudence would intentionally unfurl the National Flag in reverse position without any personal motive and thereby expose himself to legal consequences. It was submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process of law since the essential ingredient of intentional insult was conspicuously absent.

Arguments of the State:

The learned Government Pleader opposed the petition and contended that the petitioner, being a government servant entrusted with the solemn responsibility of hoisting the National Flag on Independence Day, was under a duty to exercise utmost caution and care. It was argued that the negligent act of hoisting the National Flag upside down tarnished the dignity and sanctity of the national symbol. The State submitted that the investigation had revealed that the petitioner failed to take proper precautions before unfurling the flag and thereby committed an act falling within the mischief of Section 2 of the 1971 Act. According to the prosecution, the sanctity of the National Flag demands strict compliance and any deviation, even if negligent, must be viewed seriously to preserve respect for national honours. It was further argued that once the Magistrate had taken cognizance based on the charge sheet, the High Court should be slow in interfering at the threshold stage unless the allegations do not disclose any offence at all. The Government Pleader maintained that the matter required adjudication during trial and that the petitioner should face evidence before seeking exoneration.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully examining the complaint, charge sheet and witness statements, Justice Rajesh K Rai proceeded to analyze whether the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act were satisfied. The Court observed that the complaint itself stated that the petitioner negligently displayed the National Flag upside down and unfurled it erroneously. Upon scrutiny of the charge sheet materials, it emerged that all witnesses consistently described the incident as an act of negligence without attributing any deliberate intention or ulterior motive to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that penal statutes must be strictly construed and that criminal liability under Section 2 is attracted only when there is intentional insult or deliberate act showing disrespect to the National Flag. The Bench noted that mere inadvertence or mistake, however regrettable, cannot be equated with intentional insult. Drawing support from the reasoning of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Tiwari v State of M P, the Court observed that it defies common sense to presume that a government officer deputed for a ceremonial function would intentionally unfurl the National Flag in reverse position and thereby invite criminal prosecution. The Court reiterated that mens rea is a fundamental element of criminal jurisprudence and in the absence of intention, the prosecution cannot be sustained. It was held that the material on record clearly established that the act was unintentional and caused only by mistake. The petitioner neither offered indignity to the National Flag nor intentionally displayed it with the saffron side down. In such circumstances, the statutory provision did not stand attracted. The High Court further held that allowing the prosecution to continue despite absence of foundational ingredients of the offence would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings pending before the Magistrate.