Karnataka High Court sets aside case against govt high school principal booked for 'insulting' tricolour

The High Court of Karnataka has set aside criminal proceedings against a government high school principal under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that lack of mens rea (guilt of mind) would necessarily lead to setting aside the proceedings for an offence under Section 2 of the Act, as the word employed is ‘intentional’.

B C Venugopal, Principal of Bagalagunte Government High School in Nagasandra, had challenged proceedings initiated against him based on a complaint by a human rights activist. The complaint had alleged that the principal had put up a WhatsApp status, purportedly showing him standing with slippers on the National Flag. 

Venugopal submitted that on October 2, 2024, the WhatsApp status of students and teachers and many others were connected to the celebrations of Gandhi Jayanti. The complaint was filed on October 5, 2024. 

According to the petitioner, his mobile phone was with the students, one of whom edited the picture. He further submitted that on October 2 itself, the student had admitted to having edited the photo, explaining that he had unknowingly placed the principal’s photo the National Flag. 

It was further submitted that since he is a very strict teacher, students had an animosity towards him and had edited the image only to create embarrassment to the petitioner. 

On the other hand, the prosecution contended that whether the students edited and posted it or otherwise must necessarily mean that the case must be investigated. It is a disputed question of fact that the petitioner’s phone was given to students who edited and circulated the picture. 

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that Section 2 of the Act has borne interpretation by several high courts and said that mens rea becomes the key ingredient of an offence under Section 2. The court also perused both the original and the edited pictures and said that the picture of the petitioner was taken elsewhere, edited and placed on the National Flag. 

“It ostensibly cannot be by the petitioner himself, but as admitted, by the student. The petitioner has also given a plausible explanation for the students doing so. Even otherwise, there are no antecedents of the petitioner that would entail investigation in the case at hand. He is a teacher, who has been the principal of the said institution for the last 7 to 8 years and has not had an incident of the kind that is now projected,” the court said.