IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4530 of 2008(S)
1. SRI.KALARKODE VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :SMT.RANI JOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.4530 of 2008 and
R.P.No.557 of 2008 in I.A.Nos.4167 & 4747 of 2008 in
W.P.(C)No.4530 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated 25th November, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
This writ petition is filed in public interest contending that
the National Emblem exhibited on the High Court building is not in
accordance with the statutory specifications and to ensure that it is
exhibited in accordance with the law. Even though there was a prayer to
punish the persons concerned, that prayer was deleted subsequently.
Petitioner himself appeared before this court and argued the case
personally. He stated that his only intention is that if there is a mistake,
that should be corrected. The High Court, being a model institution
should exhibit the National Emblem only in the proper manner. The
major contention is that as per the specification pertaining to the
National Emblem, “Satyameva Jayate” should be written in Devanagari
script below the profile of the Lion Capital and that is conspicuously
absent in the emblem exhibited on the High Court building.
2. Now, we will consider the statutory provisions regarding
the above. The statutory provisions are now codified under the State
Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Section 3 of
the Act provides as follows:
W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5
“3. Prohibition of improper use of
emblem.- Notwithstanding anything contained in
any other law for the time being in force, no
person shall use the emblem or any colourable
imitation thereof in any manner which tends to
create an impression that it relates to the
Government or that it is an official document of
the Central Government or, as the case may be,
the State Government, without the previous
permission of the Central Government or of such
officer of that Government as may be authorised
by it in this behalf.”
The section authorises general powers of Central Government to
regulate use of emblem. It also authorises the Central Government to
provide for guidelines for display of the emblem on public buildings in
India, diplomatic missions and on the buildings occupied by India’s
consulates abroad and also to specify the design of the official seal
consisting of the emblem. Orders relating to State Emblem of India
passed by the Central Government Ministry of Home Affairs is
produced as Annexure E. It states that State Emblem has been
adopted by various States including Kerala State. Paragraph VII
deals with display of the State Emblem on public buildings. Clause
(1) of paragraph VII reads as follows:
“(1) The State Emblem may be displayed
only on very important public buildings like the
Rashtrapati Bhavan, Raj Bhavans, Raj Niwases,
Supreme Court, High Courts, Central Secretariat,
Parliament House, State/Union Territory
Secretariats and Legislatures.”W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5
There is a prescription at paragraph XI that the State Emblem shall
not be used for any trade or business. Various directions are given as
to how State Emblem can be depicted on vehicles, stationery etc. by
the constitutional functionaries. With regard to the emblem, Clause
(1), paragraph I of Annexure E order states how State Emblem
should be depicted. It reads as follows:
“I-STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA – DESCRIPTION
AND DESIGN(1) The State Emblem of India is an adaptation
from the Sarnath Museum. The Lion Capital has
four lions mounted back to back on a circular
abacus. The frieze of the abacus is adorned with
sculptures in high relief of an elephant, a
galloping horse, a bull and a lion separated by
intervening Dharma Chakras. The abacus rests
on a bell-shaped lotus.The profile of the Lion Capital showing three
lions mounted on the abacus with a Dharma
Chakra in the centre, a bull on the right and a
galloping horse on the left, and outlines of
Dharma Chakras on the extreme right and left has
been adopted as the State Emblem of India. The
bell-shaped lotus has been omitted.The motto “Satyameva Jayate” – Truth alone
triumphs – written in Devanagari script below the
profile of the Lion Capital is part of the State
Emblem of India. The motto is taken from the
Mundaka Upanishad, an ancient scripture.”
Similarly, in the Schedule to the State Emblem of India (Prohibition
of Improper Use) Act, 2005 also two models are given as Appendix I
and II as follows:
W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5
In view of section 3 of the Act, even a colourable imitation of the
National Emblem cannot be depicted. In the emblem exhibited on
the High Court building the motto “Satyameva Jayate” in Devanagari
script is not inscribed below the profile of the Lion Capital.
3. It is true that the emblem as now seen was exhibited
not for any wrongful gain or with any malafide intention but by an
oversight. Therefore, we direct the Registrar General, High Court of
Kerala to make such alterations in the emblem and inscribe
“Satyameva Jayate” in Devanagari script below the profile of the Lion
Capital, as prescribed under rules, within three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This court appreciates the effort
made by the petitioner, Sri.Kalarcode Venugopalan Nair in bringing
this matter to the notice of the court. We also appreciate the efforts
taken by Lt.Colonel N.D.Joy (Retd.), a practising advocate of this
court by impleading himself in the case and pointing out the statutory
provisions regarding the matter. It is submitted that on an interim
application, cost of Rs.10,000/= was ordered and R.P.No.557 of 2008
was filed. Since the petitioner has pointed out the defects
only in public interest without any malafide intention and has
also deleted the prayer to prosecute the officers concerned,
W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5
the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner is also deleted.
The writ petition and review petition are allowed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
tks
W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ.
————————————–
I.A.No.10663 of 2008 in
W.P.(C).No.4530 OF 2008
————————————-
Dated 26th August, 2008
ORDER
Koshy,J.
The petitioner wants to delete the prayers (iii) and (iv) in
the writ petition. The petitioner who filed the writ petition has got
right to apply for deletion of the prayers. The only persons who are
entitled to oppose are the contesting respondents or the court and an
impleaded party cannot question the same as these prayers are not
against the impleaded party. After considering the prayers, we allow
this application for deleting the prayers (iii) and (iv) from the writ
petition.
Post the writ petition for hearing on 23.9.2008.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
JUDGE
tks
W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
————————————–
W.P.(C).No.4530 OF 2008
————————————-
Dated 3rd June, 2008
ORDER
Koshy,J.
When the case came up for hearing on 29.5.2008, the
matter was argued partly. We expressed our views and at the request
of the petitioner the case was adjourned to 2.6.2008. On 2.6.2008
petitioner wanted to get instructions from the client whether they
wish to withdraw the writ petition and at his request the case was
adjourned. Today, it is requested for an adjournment as counsel for
the petitioner is not well. Another petition was also filed for hearing
of R.P.No.557 of 2008. If the writ petition is not maintainable, the
question of hearing impleaded parties also will not arise. Post along
with R.P.No.557/2008 on 14.8.2008.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
tks