{"id":23224,"date":"2004-01-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004"},"modified":"2016-11-13T07:15:08","modified_gmt":"2016-11-13T01:45:08","slug":"union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: V K I.<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, Brijesh Kumar, S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2920 of 1996\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNaveen Jindal & Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/01\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, Brijesh Kumar & S.B. Sinha \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nWith <\/p>\n
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (C) NO.15849 OF 1994<\/p>\n
V.N. KHARE,C.J.I.\n<\/p>\n
In this appeal a short but an important question that arises for
\nconsideration is whether the right to fly the National Flag by Indian citizen is
\na fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
Naveen Jindal, the respondent herein, is a Joint Managing Director of
\na public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act.He being in
\ncharge of the factory of the said Company situated at Raigarh in Madhya
\nPradesh was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory.  He
\nwas not allowed to do so by the Government officials on the ground that the
\nsame is impermissible under the Flag Code of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tQuestioning the said action, the respondent filed a writ petition before
\nthe High Court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of
\nNational Flag by Indian citizens.  Flying of National Flag with respect and
\ndignity being a fundamental right, the Flag Code which contains only
\nexecutive instructions of the Government of India and, thus, being not a law,
\ncannot be considered to have imposed  reasonable restrictions in respect
\nthereof within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore the High Court, the Appellant-Union of India  raised the
\nfollowing contentions :\n<\/p>\n
“1. That the Central Government is authorised to
\nimpose restrictions on the use of National Flag at
\nany public place or building and can regulate the
\nsame by the authority vested in it under Section 3
\nof the Emblems and Names (Prevention of
\nImproper Use) Act, 1950;\n<\/p>\n
2.  That the restriction imposed by the Act and
\norders issued by the Government are
\nconstitutionally valid being reasonable restrictions
\non the Freedom of Speech and Expression under
\nArticle 19(2) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
3.  That the question of permitting free use of
\nNational Flag or to restrict its use is a matter of
\npolicy option available to the Parliament and to the
\nGovernment.  Since it is a policy option
\nconstitutionally permissible, the courts ought not
\nto interfere with the same.”\n<\/p>\n
The High Court after hearing the matter  held : (1) The question as to
\nwhether the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper
\nUse) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1950 Act’, for the sake of
\nbrevity) have been violated or not is a matter which would fall for
\ndetermination of the court of law and not by the executive; (2) The
\nrestrictions imposed by the Flag Code on flying the National Flag being not
\nlaw within the meaning clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India,
\nthe same cannot be construed to be a penal provision; (3)However, if
\ncontravention of any of those instructions and guidelines had been issued
\nunder the 1950 Act or under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour
\nAct, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’), the same would
\nconstitute a penal offence; (4) Referring to the debates held in the
\nConstituent Assembly as also a passage from the book titled ‘Our National
\nFlag’ by K.V. Singh, the High Court observed that the citizens were required
\nto be educated by issue of Flag Code and the National Flag must be flown in
\na respectful manner and so long as a citizen of India does so, no restriction
\ncan be imposed on the basis of instructions contained in the Flag Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore we proceed further it may be remembered that from time
\nimmemorial, people have laid down their lives with a view to salute their
\nown Flag.  What is so compelling in the piece of cloth called the National
\nFlag, that people make even the supreme sacrifice for its sake? National Flag
\nindisputably stands for the whole nation, its ideals, aspirations, its hopes and
\nachievements.\n<\/p>\n
“A National Flag” as pointed by Lt. Cdr. K.V. Singh in his book ‘Our
\nNational Flag’ is the most solemn symbol of a country.  Be it a Head of the
\nState, King or peasant, salutes it.  A piece of cloth called the National Flag
\nstands for the whole nation, its honour and glory.  When it goes up the flag
\nmast, “the heart of a true citizen is filled with pride.”  In his foreword to this
\nvery book, Mr. R. Venkataraman, former President of India, referred to the
\nstruggle for independence and said as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Our flag, therefore, is both a benediction and
\nbeckoning.  It contains the blessings of all those
\ngreat souls who brought us to freedom.  But it also
\nbeckons us to fulfill their vision of a just and
\nunited India.  As we confront crucial challenges to
\nour security, our unity and integrity, we cannot but
\nheed to the call of this flag to rededicate ourselves
\nto the establishment of that peaceful and just order
\nwherein all Indians irrespective of creed, caste or
\nsex will fulfill themselves.”\n<\/p>\n
When the draft of Indian Constitution was being debated, the
\nConstituent Assembly realized the importance of the National Flag.  An ad
\nhoc  committee therefor was constituted headed by Dr. Rajendra Prasad to
\ndesign the Flag for free India.  Other members of the Committee were Abul
\nKalam Azad, K.M. Panikar, Sarojini Naidu, C. Rajagopalachari, K.M.
\nMunshi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.  The Flag Committee having been
\nconstituted held several meetings and studied the question in depth.  It
\narrived at the following decision :\n<\/p>\n
“(a) The flag of the Indian National Congress
\nshould be adopted as the National Flag of India
\nwith suitable modifications, to make it acceptable
\nto all parties and communities in India.\n<\/p>\n
(b) The flag should be tricoloured, with three
\nbands horizontally arranged.\n<\/p>\n
(c) The colours should be in the following order:
\nsaffron on top, white in the middle and dark green
\nat the bottom.\n<\/p>\n
(d) The emblem of the flag should be an exact
\nreproduction of the wheel on the capital of Asoka’s
\nSarnath Pillar, superimposed in the middle of the
\ncentral white band.\n<\/p>\n
(e)  The colour of the emblem should be dark
\nblue.”\n<\/p>\n
A motion was moved by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in the Constituent
\nAssembly of India on 22nd July 1947 for the adoption of the National Flag.
\nThe responses to this motion are extremely significant and serve as apt
\nreflections of the importance of the Indian Flag to the Indian people as a
\nwhole. The Flag played an extremely vital role in India’s struggle for
\nfreedom and its adoption was one of the indications of the culmination of
\nthat struggle. However, in the light of the present society, it is something
\nthat is much more than a mere symbol of freedom.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs said by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, the flag is, “a flag of freedom
\nnot for ourselves, but a symbol of freedom to all people who may seek it.”
\n(See Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947, p. 766) It was not to be
\nthe flag of the rich or wealthy, but it is to be the Flag of the depressed,
\noppressed and submerged classes all over the country. (See the views of Shri
\nV.I. Muniswami Pillai, in Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947,
\np.771). This flag was to be the flag of the Nation, not the flag of any
\nparticular community, but the Flag of all Indians. As declared by Shri Frank
\nAnthony, “while this is a symbol of our past, it inspires us for the future.
\nThis flag flies today as the flag of the nation, and it should be the duty and
\nprivilege of every Indian not only to cherish and live under it, but if
\nnecessary, to die for it.” (See Constituent Assembly Debates, 22nd July 1947,
\np. 780)<\/p>\n
\tThe significance of the National Flag was aptly portrayed by Pandit
\nGovind Malaviya who said, “The importance of a National Flag does not
\ndepend on its colour, its bands or its other parts. The flag as a whole, is
\nimportant and other things- the colours etc, that it contains- are immaterial.
\nThe flag may be of a piece of white cloth or of any other insignificant
\nmaterial but when it is accepted as a National Flag, it becomes the emblem
\nof national self-respect. It becomes an expression of the sense of freedom of
\na nation.”\n<\/p>\n
The resolution which was adopted as under :
\n“Resolved that the National Flag of India shall be a
\nhorizontal tricolour of deep Saffron (Kesari), white
\nand dark green in equal proportion.  In the center
\nof the white band, there shall be a wheel of navy
\nblue to represent the Chakra.  The design of the
\nwheel shall be that of the Wheel (Chakra) which
\nappears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion Capital
\nof Asoka.”\n<\/p>\n
\tNational Flags are intended to project the identity of the country
\nthey represent and foster national spirit. Their distinctive designs and colours
\nembody each nation’s particular character and proclaim the country’s
\nseparate existence. Thus it is veritably common to all nations that a national
\nflag has a great amount of significance. In order that the respect and dignity
\nof the flag be fostered and maintained, several countries have laid down
\nrules relating to the use, display, etc. of the flag, along with rules to provide
\nagainst the burning, mutilation and destruction of the flag. At this stage we
\nwould like to deal with the question as to how flying of national flag is
\nunderstood by other countries. The question at hand relates to how many
\ncountries allow the free use of the national flag by the citizens. In stark
\ncontrast to the role the flag has played in the freedom struggles, in several
\ncountries, the usage of the flag has become a virtual sole prerogative of the
\ngovernment.\n<\/p>\n
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF FLAG IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES :\n<\/p>\n
S.No.\n<\/p>\n
Name of the country
\nWhether free use
\nof National Flag
\nis allowed to an
\nindividual<\/p>\n
1.
\nAustralia
\nYes\n<\/p>\n
2.
\nBrazil
\nYes\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nCanada
\nYes\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nChina
\nYes, even on
\ncertain occasions
\nand places\n<\/p>\n
5.
\nEgypt
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
6.
\nGermany
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
7.
\nIndonesia
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
8.
\nItaly
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
9.
\nJapan
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
10.
\nMalaysia
\nYes\n<\/p>\n
11.
\nMexico
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
12.
\nMiramar
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
13.
\nNew Zealand
\nYes\n<\/p>\n
14.
\nPakistan
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
15.
\nSri Lanka
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
16.
\nSweden
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
17.
\nTrinidad & Tobago
\nNo\n<\/p>\n
18.
\nUnited Kingdom
\nNo<\/p>\n
\tCountries like Canada and Brazil allow free use of the flag by
\nindividuals, with the only rider being that the flag is treated with dignity and
\nrespect and flown and displayed properly. In the US Flag Code, free use by
\ncitizens is not specifically defined. The US Flag Code advocates the flying
\nof the flag with dignity and prohibits mutilation or defilement in public and
\nits use as costumes, athletic uniforms, cushions, handkerchiefs, etc. While
\nstating that the flag should be flown on all days, it specifies certain days on
\nwhich the flag should be flown specially. In the United Kingdom, the flying
\nof the flag is restricted to certain dates and on specified buildings. Japan has
\nnot defined the free use of the Flag by individuals, but has some provisions,
\nwhich may allow for their usage. For example, it is stated, ” Now some of
\nyou must be inviting foreign guests to your factory or company in
\nconnection with your work. You must be having reception, meetings, dining
\ntogether. In such cases, as a symbol of welcome, if you want to hoist the
\nnational flag along with the flag of the other person’s country,
\nthe…specifications about size, etc. are to be followed.”(See National Flag of
\nJapan [Basic Rules for Hoisting]) Among India’s neighbours, Pakistan
\nallows free display of the National Flag on specified days only as may be
\nnotified by the government. Similarly, Sri Lanka also permits display of the
\nNational Flag on days of national importance only. (See the Report of the
\nNational Flag Committee, April 2001, pp. 14-15)<\/p>\n
\tElsewhere among the Commonwealth nations, in Australia the rules
\nfor flying the national flag only relate to flying the flag with dignity. In fact,
\nit is mentioned that the government hopes that all Australians will honour
\nand fly it with the pride befitting a national symbol. Similarly, it will be
\nnoticed that even in New Zealand, there are no special days prescribed on
\nwhich only individuals can fly the flag. In fact it is specifically stated that
\nthe New Zealand Flag may be flown on any day of the year. The rules are
\nmeant to serve as guides to simplify flag flying and lay down the correct
\nway to display the national flag. In fact in New Zealand the flag can be used
\nfor advertising and commercial use also, provided that a faithful
\nrepresentation should always be achieved with the flag being reproduced in
\nits true colours. In China, the Flag can be displayed even on New Year’s
\nDay, Spring Festival and in public places such as squares and parks. Further,
\neven in Malaysia, there is no restriction on the flying of the flag. The Flag
\ncan be put on cars and even on the inside of cars and flags are almost all
\nover the place. The Malaysians use stickers with the National Flag and
\ninscriptions ‘proud to be Malaysian.’<\/p>\n
The proceedings of this Court show that the appellant herein with a
\nview to resolve the controversy took several adjournments in the matter.
\nUltimately a committee was constituted by the appellant on or about
\n18.10.2000    submitted    its   report  in April 2001  upon obtaining the
\nviews of the State Governments and the Union Territory Administrations as
\nregard the questions :\n<\/p>\n
(a) Whether there is need to liberalize the use of
\nthe National Flag.  If so, to what extent?\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tWhether the State Government  foresee any
\nproblems in liberalizing the use of the
\nNational Flag.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tIf the use of the National Flag is to be
\nliberalised for general public, what type of
\nreasonable restrictions may be imposed to
\nensure that the dignity of the flag is
\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tWhether the provisions of the Flag Code –
\nIndia should have statutory back-up.”\n<\/p>\n
The Committee constituted by the Central Government took into
\nconsideration the history and genesis of the Flag and inter alia noticed :
\n“3.1 From time immemorial, people have laid
\ndown their lives for their flags. Indeed, there is
\nsomething so compelling in this piece of cloth,
\ncalled the National Flag, that people make even the
\nsupreme sacrifice for its sake.  The National Flag
\nstands for the whole nation, its ideals, aspirations,
\nits hopes and achievements.  It is a beacon
\nshowing to its people the path when their very
\nexistence is threatened.  It is at this time of danger
\nthat this much length of cloth inspires people to
\nunite under its umbrella and urge them to defend
\nthe honour of their motherland.”\n<\/p>\n
The recommendations made by the said Committee was placed before
\nthe Cabinet whereafter the Flag Code of India 2002 was issued which came
\ninto force with effect from 26.1.2002.\n<\/p>\n
The said Flag Code has been divided into three parts. Part I of the
\nCode contains the description of the National Flag.  Part II provides for the
\nmode and manner of hoisting\/display\/use of National Flag by members of
\nthe public, private organizations, educational institutions etc.  Part III of the
\nCode relates to hoisting\/display of the National Flag by the Central and State
\nGovernments and their organizations and agencies.  From Clause 2.1 of
\nSection I appearing in Part II of the National Flag, it is now clear that there
\nshall be no restriction on the display of the National Flag by members of
\ngeneral public, private organizations, educational institutions etc.  except to
\nthe extent provided in the 1950 Act and 1971 Act and any other law enacted
\non the subject.  Having regard to the aforementioned statutes, as regards
\nflying of the National Flag, regulations which are 13 in number have been
\nlaid down in the Flag Code, one of them being :\n<\/p>\n
“(i) the Flag shall not be used for commercial
\npurposes in violation of the emblem and
\nNames (Prevention of Improper Use) Act,
\n1950;”\n<\/p>\n
Section I of Part III provides for defence installations\/Heads of
\nMissions\/Posts whereas Section II provides for official display. Section II of
\nPart II provides for as to how the National Flag may be hoisted in
\neducational institutions. Section III of Part III lays down the manner in
\nwhich correct display of the National Flag should be made and in contrast
\nthereto Section IV provides for incorrect display.  Section V provides as to
\nhow misuse of the National Flag should be prevented.  Section VI provides
\nfor salute of the Flag.  Section VII provides that display with flags of other
\nNations and of United Nations.\n<\/p>\n
\tAlthough  interpretation of the Constitution of India is primarily must
\nbe based on the materials available in India, relevant rules of the other
\ncountries have been enumerated hereinbefore for our guidance.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt can therefore be stated that some countries like Brazil, Canada
\nallow for the unrestricted use of the Flag by individuals. On the other side of
\nthe spectrum, countries like the UK hold their flag so sacrosanct that
\nindividuals are not permitted to use and display the flag. Other countries all
\ntry to strike a balance between the two extremes, based on the cherished
\nvalues of their country, the history behind the evolution of the flag in their
\ncountry, etc. Thus, in order to discern whether an individual has a right to
\ndisplay the flag in India, one will have to discern what are the advantages
\nand disadvantages of free use and balance that with the vital role played by
\nthe flag in India’s freedom struggle.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere are two main schools of thoughts governing the free use of the
\nflag. On one hand it is contended that the policy of India has so far been to
\nrestrict the use of the National Flag with a view of ensuring that it is not
\ndishonored in any manner. The instructions contained in the Flag Code are
\nintended to ensure that proper respect is shown to the National Flag and that
\nthe Flag is not used indiscriminately. Moreover, a more liberal use of the
\nNational Flag would require greater civic awareness on the part of the
\ncitizens. A sudden swing to a liberal approach in the matter may create
\nproblems, particularly in the matter of ensuring that the correct usages
\nregarding the National Flag are observed by the citizens at large.
\nUnrestricted use of the National Flag may result in commercial exploitation
\nof the Flag. It may be difficult to detect all such instances and take necessary
\naction. Unrestricted use of the Flag may not attract the same level of respect
\nand reverence from the citizens as at present. The unrestricted use of the
\nNational Flag may result in its indiscriminate use in processions, meetings,
\netc. Instances of insults to the National Flag as a matter of protest may also
\noccur.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, on the other hand, there is another set of people who
\nardently believe that there exists strong reasons to liberalise the use of
\nNational Flag for a number of reasons, some of them being: –\n<\/p>\n
?\tDue to the various restrictions imposed on the use and display
\nof the National Flag, an impression has developed among
\npeople as if the national Flag is meant for Government use only
\nand the people at large are permitted unrestricted display of
\nNational Flag only on certain limited occasions. This has
\nprobably created a feeling of dissatisfaction among certain
\nsections of people of India.\n<\/p>\n
?\tWith the electronic media and satellite communication
\nbecoming popular, it is very difficult to ensure that public
\ndisplay of the National Flag is avoided. For instance, in various
\ninternational sports or cultural events, people identify
\nthemselves with their country by displacing the National Flag.
\nIt is an expression of pride. It is an expression of genuine
\nenthusiasm. If the restrictions imposed on the use of the
\nNational Flag are implemented scrupulously, it would amount
\nto discouraging the Indian citizens or Indian nationals from
\nidentifying themselves with the Flag of the country.
\n?\tThe restrictions imposed on the use of the National Flag should
\nbe commensurate with the international practices being adopted
\nby various democratic countries and the Government should not
\nimpose any restriction, which distances people from the
\nNational Flag.\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, there exist two very strong views of thought on whether there
\nshould be free and unrestricted use of the flag allowed to citizens. The stand
\ntaken by other countries definitely has a bearing on the course India has
\ntaken so far and the course to be adopted in the future. It can be seen from
\nthe history, reflected very aptly from the discussions in the Constituent
\nAssembly that the flag is definitely one of the most revered objects in our
\nsociety. It must certainly be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This
\nmight not be possible without imposing any restrictions on its use. But one
\ncan see from the global scenario, that the major trend is to protect the flag
\nagainst mutilation, destruction, etc. and not to prevent individuals from
\nhaving any access to the flag, making its use a virtual exclusive privilege of
\nthe government. Since all Indians fought for freedom, it can never be the
\nintention to deny them use of their National Flag – a symbol of their freedom
\nin entirety. Thus, one can conclude that the basic intention is to provide
\nagainst the destruction, mutilation, etc. of the Flag and to provide certain
\nbasic level rules for when and how it should be compulsorily used. Though
\nnot expressly stated, it must therefore give a right of usage to the citizens,
\nother than on the specific occasions specified.\n<\/p>\n
\tThen the question arises, which view is to be accepted. National
\nanthem, National Flag and National Song are secular symbols of  the
\nnationhood.  They represent the supreme collective expression of
\ncommitment and loyalty to the nation as well as patriotism for the country.
\nThey are necessary adjunct of sovereignty being symbols and actions
\nassociated therewith.  Can an Indian citizen having regard to the law
\nprevailing in other countries fly an Indian flag therein or whether a foreigner
\ncan fly his flag in India.  If the answer to the question is to be rendered in the
\nnegative, a startling result will follow therefrom inasmuch an Indian citizen
\ntraveling abroad will be entitled to fly the National Flag but not in India
\nwhereas a foreigner would be entitled to do so within the territory of India.
\nThe beauty of the Indian Constitution is that the entire structure of the
\ncountry is based thereupon.  It is the very  pillar upon which the democracy
\nof India stands. The unity and integrity of India if to be perceived in diverse
\nsituation, the feeling of loyalty, commitment and patriotism can be judged
\nnot only by giving effect to the constitutionalism but also on their secular
\nsymbol unhidden as noticed hereinbefore.  The question of this nature has to
\nbe considered not from the answer as to whether their exists an express
\nprovision on the basis whereof a right to fly the National Flag can be rested
\nor whether there is anything in the Constitution prohibiting or denying the
\nexercise of such a right.   If flying of a National Flag is considered in
\nabsence of any denial thereof either in the Constitution or in any other
\nstatute book, it may be held to be a part of the fundamental right.\n<\/p>\n
Before we proceed further, it is necessary to deal with the question,
\nwhether Flag Code is “law”?   Flag  Code  concededly contains the
\nexecutive instructions of the Central Government.  It is stated that the
\nMinistry of Home Affairs, which is competent to issue the instructions
\ncontained in the Flag Code and all matters relating thereto are one of the
\nitems of business allocated to the said Ministry by the President under the
\nGovernment of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 framed in terms
\nof Article 77 of the Constitution of India.  The question, however, is as to
\nwhether the said executive instruction is “law” within the meaning of Article
\n13 of the Constitution of India.  Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India
\nreads thus :\n<\/p>\n
“13. (3) (a) “Law” includes any Ordinance, order
\nbye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or
\nusage having in the territory of India the force of
\nlaw.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA bare perusal of the said provision would clearly go to show that
\nexecutive instructions would not fall within the aforementioned category.
\nSuch executive instructions may have the force of law for some other
\npurposes; as for example those instructions which are issued as a supplement
\nto the legislative power in terms of  clause (1) of Article 77 of the
\nConstitution of India.  The necessity as regard determination of the said
\nquestion has arisen as the Parliament has not chosen to enact a statute which
\nwould confer at least a statutory right upon a citizen of India to fly a
\nNational Flag.  An executive instruction issued by the appellant herein can
\nany time be replaced by another set of executive instructions and thus
\ndeprive Indian citizens from flying National Flag.  Furthermore, such a
\nquestion will also arise in the event if it be held that right to fly the National
\nFlag is a fundamental or a natural right within the meaning of Article 19 of
\nthe Constitution of India; as for the purpose of regulating the exercise of
\nright of freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) a law must
\nbe made.\n<\/p>\n
In Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P.<\/a> [AIR 1963 SC 1295], this Court
\nheld :\n<\/p>\n
“Though learned counsel for the respondent started
\nby attempting such a justification by invoking
\nsection 12 of the Indian Police Act he gave this up
\nand conceded that the regulations contained in
\nChapter XX had no such statutory basis but were
\nmerely executive or departmental instructions
\nframed for the guidance of the police officers.
\nThey would not therefore be “a Law” which the
\nstate is entitled to make under the relevant clauses
\n(2) to (6) of Article 19 in order to regulate or
\ncurtail fundamental rights guaranteed by the
\nseveral sub-clauses of Article 19(1), nor would the
\nsame be a “a procedure established by law” within
\nArticle 21.  The position therefore is that if the
\naction of the police which is the arm of the
\nexecutive of the state is found to infringe any of
\nthe freedom guaranteed to the petitioner the
\npetitioner would be entitled to the relief of
\nmandamus which he seeks, to  restrain the state
\nfrom taking action under the regulations.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTo the same effect are the decisions of this Court in State of Madhya
\nPradesh and Another vs. Thakur Bharat Singh<\/a>  [AIR  1967 SC 1170],
\nBijoe, Emmanuel and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others<\/a> [(1986) 3 SCC
\n619].\n<\/p>\n
\tIn S.C. Advocates-on-Record Assn. vs. Union of India<\/a> [(1993) 4 SCC
\n441], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“Constitution is the “will” of the people whereas
\nthe statutory laws are the creation of the legislators
\nwho are the elected representatives of the people.
\nWhere the will of the legislature-declared in the
\nstatutes-stands in opposition to that of the people-
\ndeclared in the constitution-the will of the people
\nmust prevail.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary<\/a> [(2003) 8 SCC 204], this Court
\nheld that a circular letter as regard determination of caste of a child born
\nfrom a non-Scheduled Caste Hindu father and a Scheduled Caste mother
\nshall not have the force of the statute, stating :\n<\/p>\n
“The said circular letter has not been issued by the
\nState in exercise of its power under Article 162 of
\nthe Constitution of India.  It is not stated therein
\nthat the decision has been taken by the Cabinet or
\nany authority authorized in this behalf in terms of
\nArticle 166(3) of the Constitution  of India.  It is
\ntrite that a circular letter being an administrative
\ninstruction is not a law within the meaning of
\nArticle 13 of the Constitution of India.  [See
\nDwarka Nath Tewari v. State of Bihar – AIR 1959
\nSC 249].\n<\/p>\n
Now we come to the core question, whether flying of the National
\nFlag is a fundamental right?\n<\/p>\n
Part III of the Constitution of India provides for fundamental rights.
\nBy reason of Article 19 of the Constitution of India six rights of freedom
\nhave been guranteed  to the citizens of  India.   Clause (a) of the said right
\nspeaks of freedom of speech and expression.  Such a fundamental right is,
\nhowever, not absolute.  It is subject to the regulatory provisions contained in
\nclause (2) which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
(2)”Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall
\naffect the operation of any existing law, or prevent
\nthe State from making any law, in so far as such
\nlaw imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise
\nof the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the
\ninterests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
\nthe security of the State, friendly relations with
\nForeign States, public order, decency or morality
\nor in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
\nincitement to an offence.”\n<\/p>\n
The rights specified in Article 19 operate against the State actions.
\nThe rights granted to a citizen of India under Article 19 of the Constitution
\nof India, it is trite, is not to be considered in isolation as Part III constitutes
\nan amalgam of rights and, thus, a law falling under Articles 21 and 22 of the
\nConstitution of India has yet to satisfy the requirements of other Articles in
\nPart III of the Constitution, such as Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
With a view to find out an answer to the aforementioned question, it
\nwas necessary for us also to take into account  :  importance of the National
\nFlag; (2) Constituent Assembly Debates; and (3) Rules existing in other
\ncountries, which have already been adverted to.  As would appear from the
\ndiscussions made herein before, flying of National Flag being symbol of
\nexpression would come within the purview of Article 19(1) (a) of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Victor Chandler International vs. Customs and Excise
\nCommissioners and another [2000) 2 All ER 315 at p. 322], it was stated :
\n“27. There are, of course, some gaps in legislation
\nthat cannot be filled by judge made law.  But it is
\nnow a well known rule of statutory construction
\nthat an ‘ongoing’ statutory provision should be
\ntreated as ‘always speaking’.  The principle is set
\nout in Bennion Statutory Interpretation (3rd edn,
\n1997), p.686:\n<\/p>\n
\t‘(2) It is presumed that Parliament intends
\nthe court to apply to an ongoing Act a construction
\nthat continuously updates its wording to allow for
\nchanges since the Act was initially framed (an
\nupdating construction).  While it remains law, it is
\nto be treated as always speaking….(3) A fixed-time
\nAct is intended to be applied in the same way
\nwhatever changes might occur after its passing.
\nUpdating construction is not therefore applied to it.\n<\/p>\n
28.\tThese principles received the endorsement
\nof the Court of Appeal in R. vs. Westminister City
\nCouncil, ex p A (1997) 9 Admin LR 504 at 509,
\nwhere Lord Woolf MR described the National
\nAssistance Act 1948 as –\n<\/p>\n
\t‘a prime example of an Act which is “always
\nspeaking” and so should be construed” on a
\nconstruction, that continuously updates its wording
\nto allow for changes since the Act was initially
\nframed”.\n<\/p>\n
\tConstitution being a living organ, its ongoing interpretation is
\npermissible.  The supremacy of the Constitution is essential to bring social
\nchanges in the national polity evolved with the passage of time.\n<\/p>\n
\tInterpretation of the Constitution is a difficult task.  While doing so,
\nthe constitutional courts are not only required to take into consideration their
\nown experience over the time, the international treatise and covenants but
\nalso keeping the doctrine of flexibility in mind.  This Court times without
\nnumber has extended the scope and extent of the provisions of the
\nfundamental rights, having regard to several factors including the intent and
\npurport of the constitution makers as reflected in Parts IV and IVA of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn developed countries, like Australia, freedom of expression did not
\nfind place in the Australian Constitution.  In fact, there is no list of personal
\nrights of freedom which may be enforced in the courts, listed in the
\nAustralian Constitution, save and except certain personal rights such as the
\nright to trial by jury (Section 80) and the right to freedom of religion
\n(Section 116).  Despite the same the High Court of Australia beginning from
\n1992 indicated that the citizens enjoy implied rights to free speech and
\ncommunication on matters concerning politics and government, as for
\nexample, permitting political advertising during election campaigns terms as
\n‘implied freedom of political communication’.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may note some case law from Australia, in this connection :
\n\tIn Levy v State of Victoria and Lange v Australian Broadcasting
\nCorporation, Anne Twomey, Sydney Law Review, Vol 1 No 1, March
\n1997,  it was stated :\n<\/p>\n
“The constitutional implication of freedom of
\npolitical communication may have only recently
\nbeen recognised in Australia, but it has rapidly
\ndeveloped through three generations of cases. It
\nwas initially recognised in 1992 on the grounds
\nthat it was necessary for the efficacious operation
\nof the system of representative government which
\nis mandated by the text and structure of the
\nCommonwealth Constitution. In 1994, the
\napplication of the implication was expanded in
\nTheophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd and
\nStephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd to
\nconstrain State defamation laws, both statute and
\ncommon law. In 1996, however, the High Court
\nhas been more restrained in its interpretation of the
\nextent of the implication and in the development of
\nfurther implications which rest upon the
\nconstitutional system of representative
\ngovernment.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn The State of Play in the Constitutionally Implied Freedom of
\nPolitical Discussion and Bans on Electoral Canvassing in Australia,
\nGeorge Williams, Parliamentary Library Law and Bills Digest Group
\nResearch Paper 10, 1997, it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
“Despite judicial moves to strengthen protection
\nfor political discussion in Australia, there have
\nbeen countervailing political moves to restrict
\ncertain forms of political speech. This has
\nfrequently been driven by inquiries undertaken by
\nparliamentary committees at both the State and
\nFederal level. …Does this mean that Australian
\nParliaments and the High Court are on a collision
\ncourse over free speech in the electoral process?
\nThe answer need not be yes.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe decisions of the High Court in Australian Capital Television Pty
\nLtd v Commonwealth (the Political Broadcasts case) and Nationwide News
\nPty Ltd v Wills (the Nationwide News case) mark a significant new
\ndevelopment in Australian constitutional law, in particular because of the
\nHigh Court’s recognition of the freedom of communication in relation to
\npolitical matters.\n<\/p>\n
Article 5 of the 1988 Brazil Constitution guarantees that “the
\nexpression of thought is free, and anonymity is forbidden… the expression
\nof intellectual, artistic, scientific, and communications activities is free,
\nindependently of censorship or license” and that “the privacy, private life,
\nhonor and image of persons are inviolable, and the right to compensation for
\nproperty or moral damages resulting from their violation is ensured.”\n<\/p>\n
Free speech rights in the Venezuelan constitution are based on the
\nbroad definition of ”freedom of expression” in Article 19 of the Universal
\nDeclaration of Human Rights, which asserts, not only a right to ”freedom of
\nopinion and expression” but also a right ”to seek, receive and impart
\ninformation and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”<\/p>\n
Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter states that “Everyone has the
\nfreedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the
\npress and other media of communication.” The section potentially could
\ncover  a  wide  range  of   action,   from    commercial    expression      to
\npolitical   expression;   from     journalistic    privilege   to    hate    speech
\nto pornography. The jurisprudence of the Supreme
\nCourt of Canada has largely been an attempt to carve out: first, the purpose
\nof s. 2(b) what values does it seek to protect, who should be entitled to its
\nprotection; and second, the scope of s. 2(b), what is ‘expression’?
\nFreedom of expression is a cornerstone of  functioning of the
\ndemocracy. Freedom of expression promotes certain  values, as noted by
\nProfessor Emerson in 1963: “Maintenance of a system of free expression is
\nnecessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of
\nattaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members
\nof the society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as
\nmaintaining the balance between stability and change in society.”
\nConstitutional commitment to free speech was held to be  predicated on the
\nbelief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in
\nthe hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the
\npower of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.
\nThe Canadian approach to freedom of expression allows for a wide
\nconception of “expression” within s. 2(b). The Supreme Court of Canada has
\nstated that a wide and inclusionary approach to the interpretation of the
\nCharter’s free expression guarantee is to be preferred (see Ford v. Quebec
\n1988 (2) SCR 90, and Irwin Toy v. Quebec (Attorney General) 1989 (1)
\nSCR 927). Thus, in Irwin Toy, Chief Justice Dickson explained that
\n“‘expression’ has both a content and a form, and the two can be inextricably
\nconnected. Activity is expressive if it attempts to convey meaning. That
\nmeaning is its content.” Not only is there a freedom of expression, there is
\nalso a freedom  not to express. As Justice Beetz said in National Bank of
\nCanada v. R.C.U. 1984 (1) SCR 269 [p. 377 text], “all freedoms guaranteed
\nby s. 2 of the Charter necessarily imply reciprocal rights: … freedom of
\nexpression includes the right to not express.”
\nThere are of course limits to free speech and free press guarantees, as
\nthe Canadian Supreme Court is quite ready to point out (see CBC v.
\nA.G.N.B. 1991 (3) SCR 459). For example, even though the press enjoys
\ncore constitutional rights of access and publication, they do not have
\nprotection for all operational means and methods the press may choose to
\nadopt. The press does not, for example, enjoy immunity if they run a
\npedestrian down in pursuit of a new story under the guise of “freedom of the
\npress”. Nor is a violent attack on someone (however dramatic the attack may
\nbe) considered to be expression. Understanding freedom of expression
\nrequires not only understanding its place in the Canadian constitution, but
\nalso, understanding it within the context of society and society’s competing
\nvalues.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court has also extended the meaning of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
\nthe Constitution of India. [See; Jagdish Saran and Others vs. Union of
\nIndia<\/a> (1980) 2 SCC 768]
\n \tDecisions are many where this Court read various rights in Article 21
\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
This Court has also interpreted the provisions of the Constitution of
\nIndia either in the light of the Directive Principles of the State Policy as
\ncontained in Part IV of the Constitution of India or fundamental duties as
\nadumbrated in Part IVA thereof or both.  Applying the said test and keeping
\nin view the fact that the right to fly the National Flag is not an absolute right
\nbut a qualified right, such right can be read with having regard to Article 51-
\nA of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Another etc. vs.
\nUnion of India and Another [(2003) 4 SCC 399 at page 403], this Court
\nheld:\n<\/p>\n
“…It is established that fundamental rights
\nthemselves have no fixed content, most of them
\nare empty vessels into which each generation must
\npour its content in the light of its experience.  The
\nattempt of the court should be to expand the reach <\/p>\n
and ambit of the fundamental rights by process of
\njudicial interpretation.  The Constitution is
\nrequired to be kept young, energetic and alive”.\n<\/p>\n
  The right to have a passport was also held to be a part of personal
\nliberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [See: Maneka Gandhi
\nvs. Union of India<\/a> – [1978 ] 1 SCC 248].  Disturbance to ecological balance
\nhas been held to be  hazardous to life within the meaning of Article 21 of the
\nConstitution of India [See M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath<\/a> (2000) 6 SCC 213].\n<\/p>\n
\tDifferent facets of Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been
\ndiscussed in a series of judgments.  The expanded notion of the principle of
\nequality as enunciated by E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> [AIR 1974
\nSC 555] followed in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India<\/a> [AIR 1978 SC 597
\nat para 56], R.D. Shetti vs. International Airport Authority of India [AIR
\n1979 SC 1628], Ajay Hasia vs. Khalid Mujib<\/a>     [AIR 1981 SC 487] and
\nNeelima Misra vs. Harinder Kaur<\/a> [(1990) 2 SCC 746].\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as right of speech and expression is concerned, vis-`-vis
\ncensor and other regulations thereof, this Court in Kameshwar Prasad vs.
\nState of Bihar [AIR 1962 SC 1166] observed :\n<\/p>\n
“Without going very much into the niceties of
\nlanguage it might be broadly stated that a
\ndemonstration is a visible manifestation of the
\nfeelings or sentiments of an individual or a group.
\nIt is thus a communication of one’s ideas to others
\nto whom it is intended to be conveyed.  It is in
\neffect therefore a form of speech or of expression,
\nbecause speech need not be vocal since signs made
\nby a dumb person would also be a form of speech.”\n<\/p>\n
In L.I.C. vs. Professor Manubhai D. Shah, [(1992) 3 SCC 637], it
\nwas observed :\n<\/p>\n
“5. Speech is God’s gift to mankind.  Through
\nspeech a human being conveys his thoughts,
\nsentiments and feelings to others.  Freedom of
\nspeech and expression is thus a natural right which
\na human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a
\nbasic human right. Everyone has the right to
\nfreedom of opinion and expression; the right
\nincludes freedom to hold opinions without
\ninterference and to seek and  receive and impart
\ninformation and ideas through any media and
\nregardless of frontiers.”\n<\/p>\n
6. A constitutional provision is never static, it is
\never-evolving and ever-changing and, therefore,
\ndoes not admit of a narrow, pedantic or syllogistic
\napproach. If such an approach had been adopted by
\nthe American Courts, the First Amendment –
\n(1971) – “Congress shall make no law abridging
\nthe freedom of speech, or of the press” – would
\nhave been restricted in its application to the
\nsituation then obtaining and would not have
\ncatered to the changed situation arising on account
\nof the transformation of the print media. It was the
\nbroad approach adopted by the Court which
\nenabled them to chart out the contours on ever-
\nexpanding notions of press freedom. In Dennis v.
\nUnited States (341 US 494 : 95 L Ed 1137 (1951))
\nJustice Frankfurter observed :\n<\/p>\n
“… The language of the First Amendment is to be
\nread not as barren words found in a dictionary but
\nas symbols of historic experience illuminated by
\nthe presuppositions of those who employed them.”
\nAdopting this approach in Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v.
\nWilson (343 US 495) the Court rejected its earlier
\ndetermination to the contrary in Mutual Film
\nCorporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
\n(236 US 230) and concluded that expression
\nthrough motion pictures is included within the
\nprotection of the First Amendment. The Court thus
\nexpanded the reach of the First Amendment by
\nplacing a liberal construction on the language of
\nthat provision. It will thus be seen that the
\nAmerican Supreme Court has always placed a
\nbroad interpretation on the constitutional provision
\nfor the obvious reason that the Constitution has to
\nserve the needs of an ever-changing society.\n<\/p>\n
7. The same trend is discernible from the decisions
\nof the Indian courts also. It must be appreciated
\nthat the Indian Constitution has separately
\nenshrined the fundamental rights in Part III of the
\nConstitution since they represent the basic values
\nwhich the people of India cherished when they
\ngave unto themselves the Constitution for free
\nIndia. That was with a view to ensuring that their
\nhonour, dignity and self respect will be protected
\nin free India. They had learnt a bitter lesson from
\nthe behavior of those in authority during the
\ncolonial rule. They were, therefore, not prepared to
\nleave anything to chance. They, therefore,
\nconsidered it of importance to protect specific
\nbasic human rights by incorporating a Bill of
\nRights in the Constitution in the form of
\nfundamental rights. These fundamental rights were
\nintended to serve generation after generation. They
\nhad to be stated in broad terms leaving scope for
\nexpansion by courts. Such an intention must be
\nascribed to the Constitution-makers since they had
\nthemselves made provisions in the Constitution to
\nbring about a socio-economic transformation. That
\nbeing so, it is reasonable to infer that the
\nConstitution-makers employed a broad
\nphraseology while drafting the fundamental rights
\nso that they may be able to cater to the needs of a
\nchanging society…”\n<\/p>\n
8. The words “freedom of speech and expression”
\nmust, therefore, be broadly construed to include
\nthe freedom to circulate one’s views by words of
\nmouth or in writing or through audio-visual
\ninstrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to
\npropagate one’s views through the print media or
\nthrough any other communication channel e.g. the
\nradio and the television. Every citizen of this free
\ncountry, therefore, has the right to air his or her
\nviews through the printing and\/or the electronic
\nmedia subject of course to permissible restrictions
\nimposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
\nThe print media, the radio and the tiny screen play
\nthe role of public educations, so vital to the growth
\nof a healthy democracy. Freedom to air one’s
\nviews is the lifeline of any democratic institution
\nand any attempt to stifle, suffocate or gag this right
\nwould sound a death-knell to democracy and
\nwould help usher in autocracy or dictatorship….”\n<\/p>\n
From the aforementioned observation, it is evident that LIC’s refusal
\nto publish respondent’s rejoinder was unfair and amounted to denial of his
\nright under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting vs. Cricket
\nAssociation of Bengal and Others [(1995) 2 SCC 161], it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t“The freedom of speech and expression
\nincludes right to acquire information and to
\ndisseminate it.  Freedom of speech and expression
\nis necessary, for self-expression which is an
\nimportant means of free conscience and self-
\nfulfilment.  It enables people to contribute to
\ndebates on social and moral issues.  It is the best
\nway to find a truest model of anything, since it is
\nonly through it that the widest possible range of
\nideas can circulate.  It is the only vehicle of
\npolitical discourse so essential to democracy.
\nEqually important is the role if plays in facilitating
\nartistic and scholarly endeavours of all sorts.”\n<\/p>\n
“45. The burden is on the authority to justify the
\nrestrictions. Public order is not the same thing as
\npublic safety and hence no restrictions can be
\nplaced on the right to freedom of speech and
\nexpression on the ground that public safety is
\nendangered. Unlike in the American Constitution,
\nlimitations on fundamental rights are specifically
\nspelt out under Article 19(2) of our Constitution.
\nHence no restrictions can be placed on the right to
\nfreedom of speech and expression on grounds
\nother than those specified under Article 19(2).”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, the right to impart and receive information by air waves and
\notherwise is a species of the right of freedom of speech and expression
\nguaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Indian Express Newspapers vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1985) 1
\nSCC 641], the  law is stated in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“Freedom of expression, as learned writers have
\nobserved, has four broad social purposes to serve :\n<\/p>\n
(i) it helps an individual to attain self fulfillment,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) it is assists in the discovery of truth, (iii) it
\nstrengthens the capacity of an individual in
\nparticipating in decision-making and (iv) it
\nprovides a mechanism by which it would be
\npossible to establish a reasonable balance between
\nstability and social change.  All members of
\nsociety should be able to form their  own beliefs
\nand communicate them freely to others.  In sum,
\nthe fundamental principle involved here is the
\npeople’s right to know.  Freedom of speech and
\nexpression should, therefore, receive a generous
\nsupport from all those who believe in the
\nparticipation of people in the administration.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the burden of import duty imposed on newsprint was held to be
\na restriction protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Tata Press Ltd. vs. MTNL and Others [(1995) 5 SCC 139], it was
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
\t“In a democratic economy free flow of
\ncommercial information is indispensable.  There
\ncannot be honest and economical marketing by the
\npublic at large without being educated by the
\ninformation disseminated through advertisements.
\nThe economic system in a democracy would be
\nhandicapped without there being freedom of
\n“commercial speech”.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, commercial speech has been held to be part of freedom of
\nspeech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
\nof India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1972) 2 SCC
\n788] it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“80. The faith of a citizen is that political wisdom
\nand virtue will sustain themselves in the free
\nmarket of ideas so long as the channels of
\ncommunication are left open. The faith in the
\npopular Government rests on the old dictum, “let
\nthe people have the truth and the freedom to
\ndiscuss it and all will go well.” The liberty of the
\npress remains an “Art of the Covenant” in every
\ndemocracy. Steel will yield products of steel.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further observed :\n<\/p>\n
“97. Political philosophers and historians have
\ntaught us that intellectual advances made by our
\ncivilisation would have been impossible without
\nfreedom of speech and expression. At any rate,
\npolitical democracy is based on the assumption that
\nsuch freedom must be jealously guarded. Voltaire
\nexpressed a democrat’s faith when he told an
\nadversary in argument : “I do not agree with a word
\nyou say, but I will defend to the death your right to
\nsay it”. Champions of human freedom of thought
\nand expression, throughout the ages, have realised
\nthat intellectual paralysis creeps over a Society
\nwhich denies, is however subtle a form, due freedom
\nof thought and expression to its members.”\n<\/p>\n
In Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur vs. Union of India<\/a> [(1994) 5 SCC
\n550], this court held :\n<\/p>\n
10. Before parting with this case, we must express
\nour unhappiness with attempts at thought control
\nin a democratic society like ours. Human history is
\nwitness to the fact that all evolution and all
\nprogress is because of power of thought and that
\nevery attempt at thought control is doomed to
\nfailure. An idea can never be killed. Suppression
\ncan never be a successful permanent policy. Any
\nsurface serenity it creates is a false one. It will
\nerupt one day. Our Constitution permits a free
\ntrade, if we can use the expression, in ideas and
\nideologies. It guarantees freedom of thought and
\nexpression – the only limitation being a law in
\nterms of clause (2) of Article 19 of the
\nConstitution. Thought control is alien to our
\nconstitutional scheme. To the same effect are the
\nobservations of Robert Jackson, J. in American
\nCommunications Association v. Douds (339 US
\n382, 442-43 (1950) : 94 L Ed 925) with reference
\nto  the U.S. Constitution :\n<\/p>\n
“Thought control is a copyright of
\ntotalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is
\nnot the function of our Government to keep the
\ncitizen from falling into error; it is the function
\nof the citizen to keep the Government from
\nfalling into error. We could justify any
\ncensorship only when the censors are better
\nshielded against error than the censored.”\n<\/p>\n
In Hindustan Times and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another<\/a>
\n[(2003) 1 SCC 591], this Court noticed as to how the right of its
\nshareholders  to have a free press is a fundamental right keeping in view the
\nfact that the newspapers serve as a medium of exercise of freedom of
\nspeech.  Referring to Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India<\/a> [AIR 1962
\nSC 305], Tata Press Ltd. (supra) and Bennett Coleman (supra), it was held :
\n\t“It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that for
\nthe purpose of meeting the costs of the newsprint
\nas also for meeting other financial liabilities which
\nwould include the liability to pay wages,
\nallowances and gratuity etc to the working
\njournalists as also liability to pay a reasonable
\nprofit to the shareholders vis-`-vis making the
\nnewspapers available to the readers at a price at
\nwhich they can afford to purchase it, the
\npetitioners have no other option but to collect more
\nfunds by publishing commercial and other
\nadvertisements in the newspaper.”\n<\/p>\n
This Court, thus, held that no tax can be levied on the newsprint for
\nthe purpose of granting wages, allowances and gratuity etc. to the working
\njournalists.\n<\/p>\n
  In this connection, it is useful to note the first amendment of the
\nConstitution of the United States of America in respect of Religion and Free
\nExpression :\n<\/p>\n
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
\nestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the
\nfree exercise thereof; or abridging the
\nfreedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
\nof the people peaceably to assemble, and to
\npetition the Government for a redress of
\ngrievances.”\n<\/p>\n
The law of the United States of America not only recognize the right
\nto fly National flag but it has gone to the extent of holding that the flag
\nburning as an expression of free speech and free expression of its citizens
\nagainst the establishment but we do not approve later part of right.\n<\/p>\n
In Harold Omand Spence 41 L Ed 2d 842, it was held
\n“He displayed it as a flag of his country in a
\nway closely analogous to the manner in which
\nflags have always been   used to convey ideas.
\nMoreover, his message was direct, likely to be
\nunderstood, and within the contours of the First
\nAmendment.”\n<\/p>\n
In Sidney Street v. State of New York, 22 L Ed 2d 572, it was held :
\n“we are unable to sustain a conviction that
\nmay have rested on a form of expression, however
\ndistasteful, which the Constitution tolerates and
\nprotects.”\n<\/p>\n
In  Texas  v. Johnson, 105 L Ed 2d 345 at 345 it was held :
\n“But whether or not he could appreciate the
\nenormity of the offence he gave, the fact remains
\nthat his acts were speech, in both the technical and
\nthe fundamental meaning of the Constitution.  So I
\nagree with the Court that he must go free.”\n<\/p>\n
In  US  v. Shawn D. Eichman, 110 L Ed 2d 287, it was held :
\n“Government may create national symbols,
\npromote them, and encourage their respectful
\ntreatment. But the Flag Protection Act of 1989
\ngoes well beyond this by criminally prescribing
\nexpressive conduct because of its likely
\ncommunicative impact.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may, however, notice that in  Board of Educ. V. Barnette, 319
\nUS 624, it has been held :\n<\/p>\n
“Freedom to differ is not limited to
\nthings that do not matter much.  That would
\nbe a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its
\nsubstance is the right to differ as to things that
\ntouch the heart of the existing order.\n<\/p>\n
If there is any fixed star in our
\nconstitutional constellation, it is that no
\nofficial, high or petty, can prescribe what shall
\nbe orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion,
\nor other matters of opinion or force citizens to
\nconfess by word or act their faith therein. If
\nthere are any circumstances which permit an
\nexception, they do not now occur to us.”\n<\/p>\n
\tHere it is necessary to notice the distinction between the Constitution
\nof India and that of United States of America and that is that in U.S.A. the
\nfirst amendment gives an absolute right to a citizen of religion and free
\nexpression, but under Constitution of India Article 19(1)(a) does not confer
\nsuch an absolute right of free speech and expression.  It only provides for a
\nqualified right.  Such a fundamental right of a citizen of speech and
\nexpression is subject to the regulatory measures contained in clause (2)
\nthereof.  So long as the expression is confined to nationalism, patriotism and
\nlove for motherland, the use of the National Flag by way of expression of
\nthose sentiments would be a fundamental right.  It cannot be used for
\ncommercial purpose or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
Flag Code is not a statute; thereby the Fundamental Right under
\nArticle 19(1) (a) is not regulated. But the guidelines as laid down under the
\nFlag Code deserve to be followed to the extent it provides for preservation of
\ndignity and respect for the national flag. The right to fly the National Flag is
\nnot an absolute right. The freedom of expression for the purpose of giving a
\nfeeling of nationalism and for that purpose all that is required to be done is
\nthat the duty to respect the flag must be strictly obeyed. The pride of a
\nperson involved in flying the Flag is the pride to be an Indian and that, thus,
\nin all respects to it  must be shown.  The state may not tolerate even the
\nslightest disrespect.\n<\/p>\n
Last question which arises in this respect is whether the right to fly the
\nNational Flag is to be considered in the context of fundamental duties.\n<\/p>\n
Every right is coupled with a duty.  Part III of the Constitution of
\nIndia although confers rights, duties and regulations are inherent thereunder.
\nSuch reasonable regulations have been found to be contained in the
\nprovisions of Part III of the Constitution of India, apart from clauses 2 to 4
\nand 6 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
\n Thus, this right is subject to certain restrictions which can be read
\nfrom Chapter IV A.  Article 51A(c) reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and
\nintegrity of India.”\n<\/p>\n
The question as to whether Article 51-A is not justiciable or
\nenforceable thus takes a backseat.  In Indian Handicraft  Emporium and
\nOthers vs. Union of India and Others<\/a>   [JT 2003 (7) SC 446], it was held :
\n“The provisions of the statute are also required to
\nbe considered keeping in view Article 48-A and
\nArticle 51A(g) of the Constitution of India which
\nare in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“48-A. Protection and improvement of
\nenvironment and safeguarding of forests and
\nwild life.– The State shall endeavour to protect
\nand improve the environment and to safeguard the
\nforests and wild life of the country.”\n<\/p>\n
“51-A. Fundamental duties. — It shall be the
\nduty of every citizen of India —\n<\/p>\n
\t…\t…\t…\t…\t…\t…\t…\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tto protect and improve the natural environment
\nincluding forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and
\nto have compassion for living creatures;”\n<\/p>\n
 \t\tWe cannot shut our eyes to the
\nstatements made in Article 48-A of the
\nConstitution of India which enjoins upon the State
\nto protect and improve the environment and to
\nsafeguard the forests and wild life of the country.
\nWhat is destructive of environment, forest and
\nwild life, thus, being contrary to the Directive
\nPrinciples of the State Policy which is fundamental
\nin the governance of the country must be given its
\nfull effect.  Similarly, the principles of Chapter
\nIVA must also be given its full effect.  Clause (g)
\nof Article 51A requires every citizen to protect and
\nimprove the natural environment including forests,
\nlakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion
\nfor living creatures.  The amendments have to be
\ncarried out keeping in view the aforementioned
\nprovisions.\n<\/p>\n
The recent amendments made in the Flag Code by the Union of India
\nand the stand taken by the learned Solicitor General that the Central
\nGovernment is not against the flying of the Flag by an individual is itself
\nindicative of the fact that a liberal construction so far as Article 19(1) (a) is
\nconcerned may be adopted. The extreme proposition of law taken in the
\nAmerican decisions that burning of the flag is  an expression of anger cannot
\nbe accepted in India as it would amount to disrespect of the National Flag.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in S. Rangarajan etc. vs. P. Jagjivan Ram and Others
\n[(1989) 2 SCC 574], laid down the law in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
    “We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the
\nState Government with regard to the film which has
\nreceived the National Award. We want to put the
\nanguished question, what good is the protection of
\nfreedom of expression if the State does not take care to
\nprotect it?  If the film is unobjectionable and cannot
\nconstitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2),
\nfreedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account
\nof threat of demonstration and processions or threats of
\nviolence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule
\nof law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation.  It
\nis the duty of the State to protect the freedom of
\nexpression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the
\nState.  The State cannot plead its inability to handle the
\nhostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to
\nprevent it and protect the freedom of expression.”\n<\/p>\n
In Ranganath Misra vs. Union of India and Others<\/a> [(2003) 7 SCC
\n133], this Court referred to the recommendations of Justice Verma
\nCommittee, which has been taken note by the National Commission to
\nReview the Working of the Constitution, which are as under :
\n“Duties are observed by individuals as a result of
\ndictates of the social system and the environment
\nin which one lives, under the influence of role
\nmodels, or on account of punitive provisions of
\nlaw.  It may be necessary to enact suitable
\nlegislation wherever necessary to require
\nobedience of obligations by the citizens.  If the
\nexisting laws are inadequate to enforce the needed
\ndiscipline, the legislative vacuum needs to be
\nfilled.  If legislation and judicial directions are
\navailable and still there are violations of
\nfundamental duties by the citizens, this would call
\nfor other strategies for making them operational.
\n\tThe desired enforceability can be better
\nachieved by providing not merely for legal
\nsanctions but also combining it with social
\nsanctions and to facilitate the performance of the
\ntask through exemplar, role models.  The element
\nof compulsion in legal sanction when combined
\nwith the natural urge for obedience of the norms to
\nattract social approbation would make the citizens
\nwilling participants in the exercise.  The real  task,
\ntherefore, is to devise methods which are a
\ncombination of these aspects to ensure a ready
\nacceptance of the programme by the general
\ncitizenry and the youth, in particular.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Committee is strongly of the view that
\nthe significance of dignity of the individual in all
\nits facets and objective of overall development of
\nthe personality of the individual must be
\nemphasized in the curriculum at all the stages of
\neducation.  This requires consciousness of
\ncitizenship values which are a combination of
\nrights and duties, and together give rise to social
\nresponsibilities. Methods must be devised to
\noperationalize this concept as a constitutional
\nvalue in our educational curriculum and in co-
\ncurricular activities, in schools and colleges.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court directed that the recommendations of the said Committee
\nshould be considered by the Central Government in the right earnest and to
\ntake appropriate steps for the implementation thereof.
\n\tThe right to fly the National Flag is a fundamental right but subject to
\nrestrictions. The right is not unfettered,  unsubscribed, unrestricted  and
\nunchannelled one.  Even assertion of the right to respectfully fly the flag vis-
\na-vis the mere right to fly the flag is regulated and controlled by two
\nsignificant parliamentary enactments, namely, the Emblems and Names
\n(Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to
\nNational Honour Act, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe courts jealously protects the honour of the National Flag as would
\nbe noticed from a decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Court
\nof which one of us, Sinha, J. was a party, in A. Satya Phaneendra vs. S.H.O.
\nKodad (PS) Nalgonda and Others [2001 (2) ALT 141], wherein considering
\na letter enclosing therewith a tri-coloured cloth resembling the National Flag
\nwhich was sold as handkerchief,  the court referring to the provisions of the
\nsaid Acts held and directed :\n<\/p>\n
“9. The aforementioned provisions, having regard
\nto the purpose and object thereof, must be given
\nstrict construction.  They also must be construed in
\nthe context of Article 51-A of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe provisions of the aforementioned Acts
\nand the Flag Code of India clearly state the reasons
\nas to why the same had to be enacted by the
\nParliament inasmuch as it is expected of every
\ncitizen of India to pay respect to the National Flag,
\nNational Anthem and the Constitution of India
\nthey deserve and any case involving deliberate
\ndisrespect thereto must be seriously dealt with…”\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe appropriate authorities including the
\nCollector of Nalgonda District and the
\nSuperintendent of Police, Nalgonda should have
\ntaken all steps to prevent the misuse of the Indian
\nNational Flag.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThey evidently have failed to perform their
\nstatutory duties.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tHaving regard to the fact that it has been
\nstated in the letter dated 15.12.2000 that the writer
\nthereof is not aware of the name(s) of the person(s)
\nmanufacturing the same, we direct the State and in
\nparticular the District Collector and the
\nSuperintendent of Police, Nalgonda District to take
\nsteps to conduct investigation with regard to the
\nmisuse of the National Flag and see to it that the
\noffenders are brought to book.  Let a copy of this
\norder be sent to the Chief Secretary to the
\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh so that necessary
\ndirections to all concerned may be issued so as to
\nprevent such misuse of the Indian National Flag.
\nAccordingly, we dispose of this writ petition. No
\ncosts.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, however, hope and trust that the Parliament, keeping in view the
\nimportance of the question involved in this matter, shall make a suitable
\nenactment for the aforementioned purpose.
\nFor the aforesaid reason, we hold that- (i) Right to fly the National
\nFlag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within
\nthe meaning of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an
\nexpression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments
\nof pride for the nation; (ii) The fundamental right to fly National Flag is not
\nan absolute right  but a qualified one being subject to reasonable restrictions
\nunder clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India; (iii) The Emblems
\nand Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of
\nInsults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag ;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Flag Code although is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a)
\nof the Constitution of India for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 19
\nthereof, it would not restrictively regulate the free exercise of the right of
\nflying the national flag.  However, the Flag Code to the extent it provides for
\npreserving respect and dignity of the National Flag, the same deserves to be
\nfollowed. (v) For the purpose of interpretation of the constitutional scheme
\nand for the purpose of maintaining a balance between the fundamental\/legal
\nrights of a citizen vis-`-vis, the regulatory measures\/restrictions, both Parts
\nIV and IVA of the Constitution of India can be taken recourse to.
\n\tFor the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this
\nappeal which is accordingly dismissed.  But in the facts and circumstances
\nof this case, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 Author: V K I. Bench: Cji, Brijesh Kumar, S.B. Sinha CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2920 of 1996 PETITIONER: Union of India RESPONDENT: Naveen Jindal & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/01\/2004 BENCH: CJI, Brijesh Kumar & S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-13T01:45:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"55 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T01:45:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\"},\"wordCount\":11022,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-13T01:45:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-13T01:45:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"55 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004","datePublished":"2004-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T01:45:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004"},"wordCount":11022,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004","name":"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-01-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-13T01:45:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-naveen-jindal-anr-on-23-january-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}