PSDA OF

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON
UNION OF INDIA V. NAVEEN JINDAL

Submitted To- Ms. Soumya Khanna

Written By- Arnav Tiwari
Enrollment No. 04517703823
INTRODUCTION
Union of India v. Naveen Jindal is a landmark legal case in India, revolving
around allegations of irregularities in the allocation of coal blocks. Naveen
Jindal, a prominent industrialist, was accused of wrongdoing in the allocation
process. The case sparked debates about corruption, government
accountability, and the allocation of natural resources. It played a significant
role in shaping the discourse on transparency and fairness in resource
allocation in the country.

FACTS OF THE CASE

-The petitioner, Naveen Jindal, was the Joint Managing Director of a factory,
whose office premises had been flying the national flag of India. Government
officials did not permit him to do this, citing the Flag Code of India. Mr. Jindal
filed a petition before the High Court arguing that no law could forbid Indian
citizens from flying the national flag and, furthermore, the Flag Code of India
was only a set of executive instructions from the Government of India and
therefore not law.
-The High Court allowed the petition and held that the Flag Code of India was
not a valid restriction on the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of
the Indian Constitution. The High Court observed that, according to Article
19(2), the only valid limitations on this right were those that were contained in
statute. In cases concerning the regulation of the flying of the national flag, such
limitations could be found in the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper
Use) Act 1950 or the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971.
-The Union of India filed an appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court
on the basis that whether citizens were free to fly the national flag was a policy
decision, and could not be subject to court interference.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1.Legal Status of the Flag Code of India: The Court examined
whether the Flag Code of India constituted "law" within the meaning of
Article 13 of the Constitution, which defines "law" in the context of
fundamental rights.

2. Fundamental Right to Fly the National Flag: The core question

was whether flying the national flag was a fundamental right under the
Constitution, particularly under Article 19(1)(a) which guarantees the
freedom of speech and expression.
 3. Interpretation of Article 19: The Court analyzed Article 19 in light
of evolving interpretations, considering past cases where the scope of
freedom of speech and expression had been extended to include various
forms of communication.

4. Limitations on the Right to Fly the Flag: While recognizing the

right to fly the national flag as a form of expression, the Court also
acknowledged that this right is not absolute, with restrictions on
commercial use or actions that disrespect the flag.

5. Regulatory Framework: The case delved into the regulatory

framework governing the use of the national flag, including the
Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 and the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971, evaluating whether
their regulations were reasonable under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution.

6. Protection of National Honour: The Court emphasized its

commitment to safeguarding the honor of the national flag, signaling
opposition to actions like burning it.

REASONING
- Justices Brijesh Kumar and S.B. Sinha dismissed the Union of India's appeal.
- The Court emphasized the significance of the Indian national flag,
acknowledging its role in fostering national spirit.
- The Flag Code of India was deemed as executive instructions, not law under
Article 13 of the Constitution.
- Flying the national flag was recognized as a fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, expressing allegiance and pride for the nation.
- However, this right is not absolute; it excludes commercial use or disrespect.
- Regulations regarding the flag fall under the Emblems and Names
(Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to
National Honour Act 1971.
- The Court pledged to safeguard the honor of the national flag, opposing
actions like burning it.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that flying the Indian national flag is a
fundamental right under the Constitution, falling under the freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). The Court emphasized the
significance of the flag as a symbol of national pride and allegiance, while also
recognizing that this right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable
restrictions to prevent misuse or disrespect. The regulatory framework
governing the use of the flag, including the Emblems and Names (Prevention
of Improper Use) Act 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour
Act 1971, was upheld as long as regulations were deemed reasonable under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed its commitment to
protecting the honor of the national flag and indicated opposition to actions
such as burning it. Overall, the appeal filed by the Union of India was
dismissed by the Court.