Furthermore, with the advancement of communications technology, it was becoming very difficult to restrict the public display of the national flag. However, the Court also noted that only allowing designated individuals and bodies to fly the flag could result in the feeling of dissatisfaction among certain citizens. The Court noted that a more liberal approach to the flying of the national flag could result in disrespect, exploitation or indiscriminate use of the flag. The Court noted that the policy in India had been to restrict the use of its national flag with a view to ensuring that it was not dishonored and that it was shown proper respect. The Court noted that several countries, including the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Japan, had laid down rules regulating the use and/or display of their national flags. The Court began by commenting on the importance of the national flag of India, noting that it was not only a mere symbol of freedom but also represented and fostered national spirit. Sinha constituted the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (the Court) who dismissed the appeal of the Union of India.
#INDIAN NATIONAL FLAG FREE#
The Union of India filed an appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court on the basis that whether citizens were free to fly the national flag was a policy decision, and could not be subject to court interference. In cases concerning the regulation of the flying of the national flag, such limitations could be found in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 or the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971.
The High Court observed that, according to Article 19(2), the only valid limitations on this right were those that were contained in statute.
#INDIAN NATIONAL FLAG CODE#
The High Court allowed the petition and held that the Flag Code of India was not a valid restriction on the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Jindal filed a petition before the High Court arguing that no law could forbid Indian citizens from flying the national flag and, furthermore, the Flag Code of India was only a set of executive instructions from the Government of India and therefore not law. Government officials did not permit him to do this, citing the Flag Code of India. The petitioner, Naveen Jindal, was the Joint Managing Director of a factory, whose office premises had been flying the national flag of India.
However, the Court did note that this right can be subject to certain reasonable statutory restrictions. The Court reasoned that the right to fly the flag can be considered as an expression of an individual’s allegiance and pride for their nation. Naveen Jindal, a director of a factory, filed a petition after he was told that he was not permitted to fly the national flag according to the Flag Code of India. The Supreme Court of India upheld a judgment affirming that the Indian Constitution and in particular the fundamental right to freedom of expression, protected the right to fly the national flag.