Judgement Analysis of Union of India v

Naveen Jindal 2004 2 SCC 410 in the light

of Article 19

Student Name: Samridhi Chadha

Class: BBA LLB
Section: B
[07551103520]
 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 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.

2
 ISSUE RAISED
• In this appeal a short but an important question that arises for consideration is whether the
right to fly the National Flag by Indian citizen is a fundamental right within the meaning of
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
• In this case Supreme Court held that right to unfurl the National Flag with dignity is a
Fundamental Right of the citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution. Right to Hoist or Unfurl the National Flag being an expression and manifestation
of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation. Bust the same is not an
absolute right but subject to the reasonable restrictions within the ambit of Article 19(2) of
Indian Constitution.

3
 RULING OF THE CASE
• In this case, the high court held that the restrictions that the Flag Code imposed on citizens on
hoisting the National Flag were not permissible under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian
Constitution. The court has also stated that displaying a flag is an expression of pride as well as
an expression of genuine enthusiasm and it can only be restricted in accordance with what has
been prescribed in the Constitution, otherwise, the restriction would discourage the citizens or
Indian nationals from identifying with the flag of the country

4
 DECISION OVERVIEW
• Justice Brijesh Kumar and Justice S.B. Sinha constituted the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court
(the Court) who dismissed the appeal of the Union of India.

• The Court began by commenting on the importance of the national flag of India, noting that it was
not only a mere symbol of freedom but also represented and fostered national spirit. . The Court
observed that since all Indians fought for freedom, it could never be the intention that they would be
denied the use of the national flag

• the Court noted that the rights protected by Article 19 of the Constitution were not absolute. As the
Flag Code of India was not a statute, it could not legitimately regulate the right to freedom of
expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The Court indicated that it would jealously protect
the honor of the national flag, and that the burning of the flag would not be accepted for it would
amount to disrespect.
• For these reasons, the Court found no merit in the appeal filed by the Union of India
5
 CASE SUMMARY AND OUTCOME
• The Supreme Court of India upheld a judgment affirming that the Indian Constitution and in
particular the fundamental right to freedom of expression, protected the right to fly the national
flag. Naveen Jindal, a director of a factory, filed a petition after he was told that he was not
permitted to fly the national flag according to the Flag Code of India. The Court reasoned that the
right to fly the flag can be considered as an expression of an individual’s allegiance and pride for
their nation. However, the Court did note that this right can be subject to certain reasonable
statutory restrictions

6
THANK YOU