Mens Rea Is Sine Qua Non Under Section 2 Of The Prevention Of Insults To National Honour Act — Without Intention, There Is No Offence: Karnataka High Court

"Patriotism Is Not Determined By A Gross Physical Act Alone", Karnataka High Court on February 21, 2026 delivered a comprehensive and definitive ruling on the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 2 of the Act. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed an FIR registered against the Principal of Bagalagunte Government High School, Bengaluru, for allegedly standing on the National Flag during Gandhi Jayanthi celebrations — a charge that the Court found to be founded not on any deliberate act of the petitioner, but on a photograph edited and circulated by a student who subsequently admitted the act and tendered an apology.

The Court held in unequivocal terms that "mens rea is the key ingredient of an offence under Section 2 of the Act" and that "the word employed is 'intentional' — I do not find any deliberate act on the part of the petitioner in the alleged crime." The FIR in Crime No. 377 of 2024 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station was quashed, and all further proceedings before the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, were set aside.

A Gandhi Jayanthi Celebration, A WhatsApp Status, And A Criminal Case That Should Never Have Been Filed

The facts of this case are as straightforward as they are troubling. The petitioner Venugopal B.C. was the Principal of Bagalagunte Government High School, Nagasandra, Bengaluru — a post he had held for 7 to 8 years with a clean record. On October 2, 2024, Gandhi Jayanthi celebrations were held at the school. Students and others shared the celebrations on their WhatsApp status.

The second respondent — the President of an organization called the Human Rights Protection Committee — noticed that in one WhatsApp status, the petitioner appeared to be standing with his slippers on the National Flag. Alleging disrespect to the Indian National Flag, he filed a complaint on October 5, 2024 seeking action against the Principal. This complaint became Crime No. 377 of 2024 under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

The reality behind the viral image was starkly different from what the complaint alleged. The students had the petitioner's mobile phone and had taken his photograph during the Gandhi Jayanthi function. One student then edited that original photograph of the petitioner — taken at a completely different spot — and superimposed it onto an image of the National Flag, creating the false impression that the Principal was standing on the Flag. The student, identified as Yashwant — a Class 10 student — subsequently admitted the act and tendered an unreserved apology in writing on October 12, 2024, stating explicitly that he had used the Principal's photograph without permission, had edited and superimposed it on the National Flag for the WhatsApp status, and that it was his mistake, not the Principal's. The student's parents also signed the apology letter.

The petitioner himself filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued by the education department, explaining that he had no knowledge of what was being circulated, that the students had used his photograph without his permission, and that he had always had great respect for the National Flag. Despite all of this, the police registered the FIR, which drove the petitioner to approach the High Court.

The Essential Ingredients Of Section 2: Both Actus Reus And Mens Rea Are Indispensable — Disrespect Must Be Deliberate And Intentional

This is the central legal finding of the judgment — a finding supported by an exhaustive survey of decisions from the Supreme Court and seven different High Courts across the country, making it one of the most comprehensive statements on the law under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 in recent judicial history.

Section 2 of the Act penalizes whoever "in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to or brings into contempt" the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India. Explanation 4 to Section 2 provides a detailed list of acts that constitute "disrespect" — and critically, Sub-explanation (i) provides that "allowing the Indian National Flag to touch the ground or the floor or trail in water intentionally" constitutes an offence under the section.

The Court examined the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which made the legislative intent unmistakably clear. The statement records that the legislation was enacted specifically because "cases involving deliberate disrespect to National Flag, the National Anthem and the Constitution have come to the notice in the recent past" and that "public acts of insults to these symbols of sovereignty and the integrity of the nation must be prevented." The scope of the legislation was expressly "restricted to overt acts of insult to and attack on, the national symbols by burning, trampling, defiling or mutilating in public."

The word "intentionally" appearing in Sub-explanation (i) of Explanation 4 was identified by the Court as the decisive textual anchor — its presence makes mens rea a condition sine qua non for prosecution under the Act.

"The Flag Code Is Not Law Within The Meaning Of Article 13(3)(a) Of The Constitution" — Violation Of Flag Code Cannot By Itself Attract Penal Consequences Under The 1971 Act

One of the most practically significant legal pronouncements in this judgment is the Court's firm reaffirmation of the settled position — originally established by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal [(2004) 2 SCC 510] and consistently followed by High Courts across the country — that the Flag Code of India, 2002 is not "law" within the constitutional meaning of the term and that its violation, standing alone, does not attract criminal prosecution under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

The Flag Code of India, 2002, contains a comprehensive set of guidelines and procedures for the display, use, and handling of the National Flag. Courts across India have, in numerous cases, been asked to prosecute persons for failing to follow the Flag Code — such as not lowering the flag before sunset, not hoisting the flag on national days, and similar procedural omissions. In all these cases, the consistent answer of the courts has been that the Flag Code represents merely executive instructions of the Central Government and does not have the force of a statute.

A Survey Of Seven High Courts: The Consistent National Consensus That Absence Of Mens Rea Is Fatal To Prosecution Under The National Honour Act

One of the most distinctive and valuable features of this judgment is its comprehensive survey of decisions from seven High Courts across India, all converging on the same conclusion — that the absence of intention to insult or disrespect the National Flag is fatal to any prosecution under Section 2 of the 1971 Act. Justice Nagaprasanna drew from this rich jurisprudence to establish what is effectively a settled national legal consensus on the point.

Against this consistent and unanimous national consensus, the Karnataka Court's ruling in the present case becomes not merely a local judgment but an affirmation of a nationwide judicial consensus: Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act is a provision designed to punish deliberate, malafide, intentional acts of disrespect to national symbols — it is not a tool for prosecuting innocent acts, inadvertent omissions, or acts of others falsely attributed to the accused.

"Patriotism Is Not Determined By A Gross Physical Act Alone": The Court's Powerful Observation On The Misuse Of National Honour Legislation

The judgment's most philosophically resonant passage is its quotation from the Madras High Court's observations on patriotism and criminal liability — observations that Justice Nagaprasanna expressly adopted and applied to the facts before him. The Madras High Court in State vs. D. Senthilkumar had held: "Patriotism is not determined by a gross physical act. The intention behind the act will be the true test, and it is possible that sometimes the very act itself manifests the intention behind it."

The Madras High Court had used a striking hypothetical illustration: "Let us take a hypothetical case where there is widespread participation in an Independence Day or Republic Day celebration. During such celebrations, the participants are provided with a national flag to be worn by them. In reality, after the participants leave the venue on completion of the celebrations, they do not continue to possess this Flag forever, and it becomes part of any other waste paper. Will this mean that each of the participants has insulted the national Flag and should be proceeded against under Section 2 of the Act? The obvious answer is in the negative."

The Madras High Court had further observed: "If persons are allowed to give such broad meaning to the word 'insult', many will become very uncomfortable and hesitant to handle the national Flag. This Court ventured to give such an extreme illustration only to drive home the point that a wayfarer, for the mere sake of publicity, should not be allowed to expose people to criminal prosecution for some innocuous acts which by themselves cannot be construed to be an insult to make it an offence under Section 2 of the Act."

These observations carry a warning that is as timely as it is legally sound. In the present era of social media virality, manipulated images, and competitive political complainants, the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act — a law designed to protect the dignity of national symbols against genuine, deliberate desecration — runs the real risk of being weaponized against innocent individuals based on false or edited visual content. The Karnataka High Court's judgment, by insisting on the strictest proof of intentional disrespect, erects an important judicial barrier against this misuse.

The Bhajan Lal Principles Applied: Where Allegations, Even Taken At Face Value, Disclose No Offence — Continuation Of Investigation Is Abuse Of Process

The Court applied the celebrated principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] to determine whether the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to the erstwhile Section 482 CrPC) was warranted. The Court specifically invoked Category 1 of the Bhajan Lal guidelines — "Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused" — and Category 7 — "Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused."

The Court found both categories squarely applicable. The admitted fact was that the photograph had been edited by a student — and the student had confessed and apologized. Even accepting the complainant's allegations at face value, there was no allegation that the petitioner himself had physically stood on any National Flag. The photograph was a fabricated composite created by another person. In these circumstances, allowing the investigation to continue would serve no purpose other than to harass a 7-to-8-year serving Principal on the basis of a student's admitted mischief and a complaint filed by a person against whom the petitioner had alleged an axe to grind.

The Court observed with unmistakable clarity: "Every High Court noticed supra which have interpreted Section 2 of the Act have clearly held that lack of mens rea would necessarily lead to quashment of proceedings for an offence under Section 2 of the Act, as the word employed is 'intentional'. I do not find any deliberate act on the part of the petitioner in the alleged crime."

What This Judgment Means For Advocates Handling Cases Under National Honour Legislation

The Karnataka High Court's ruling in Venugopal B.C. vs. State of Karnataka is a timely, comprehensive, and authoritative restatement of the law governing prosecutions under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. For criminal advocates, it establishes a clear framework. First, mens rea — the intention to show disrespect or contempt — is a condition sine qua non for any prosecution under the Act, and its absence is fatal at every stage from cognizance to trial. Second, the Flag Code of India, 2002, being a collection of executive instructions and not law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution, cannot by itself form the basis of criminal prosecution. Third, where the act complained of is traced not to the accused himself but to a third party — particularly where that third party has admitted the act — there is no basis for proceeding against the accused. Fourth, allegations of this nature, when filed with apparent political or personal malice by complainants with evident axes to grind, fall squarely within the Bhajan Lal categories and warrant quashment without hesitation. And fifth — and perhaps most importantly — criminal law must not be permitted to become a tool for chilling participation in national celebrations or for harassing dedicated teachers and public servants on the basis of manipulated digital images.

Date of Decision: February 21, 2026