Standing In 'Pranam Mudra' With A Smiling Face Not Insult To National Anthem: Patna HC Quashes Complaint Against CM Nitish Kumar

A bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha noted that the CM's admitted conduct showed only high respect for the national anthem. The Court added that mere folding hand in 'Pranaam Mudra' in standing position and 'smiling face' cannot be construed to be an insult to the 'National Anthem'.

In brief, the complaint, filed by one Vikash Paswan, alleged that Kumar, during the event, was seen talking to a person next to him and was continuously disturbing him and that he was standing in the 'Pranaam mudra', which clearly amounted to an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Terming the allegations as “completely baseless and frivolous”, the High Court observed that the complaint was politically motivated and aimed at maligning the image of a leader who has served as Chief Minister since 2005.

The Court was essentially hearing a petition filed by Kumar challenging the Magistrate's March 25 order, issuing notice to him as a “proposed accused” without examining the complainant on oath or any witnesses, as required under the BNSS.

Before the single judge, the Chief Minister's counsel argued that the Magistrate's decision to dispense with the requirements under Section 218 of the BNSS was legally untenable.

It was submitted that since the complaint was filed by a private individual and not a public servant, and the Chief Minister was present at the event in his official capacity, the procedural safeguards under Sections 218 and 223 BNSS ought to have been followed by the Court.

Referring to Section 223 of the BNSS, the Court stated that without examining the complainant on oath and prosecution witnesses, the action of the Magistrate to proceed further and issue notice to the petitioner as “proposed accused” was “totally unfounded and misconceived”.

The Court also rejected the finding of the Court below that Kumar's presence at the event was not in the capacity of a public servant and thus, Section 218 BNSS had no application in the matter.

It remarked.

“If petitioner was not the Chief Minister, he had no occasion to inaugurate the event and, therefore, his presence at the inaugural event, as aforesaid, cannot be distinguished by saying that his participation was not in capacity of a public servant as to import the protection of section 218 of the BNSS…Hence, the observation of the learned Magistrateis completely perverse on this issue that the presence of the petitioner in the inaugural event of “World Cup Sepak Takra” was not in the capacity of a public servant being Chief Minister of the State”.

Consequently, the bench quashed the entire complaint, along with notice issued to Kumar as “proposed accused”.