Section 2. Insults to Indian National Flag and Constitution of India
Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, difiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or 1[otherwise shows disrespect to or brings] into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation 1.-- Comments expressing disapprobation or criticism of the Constitution or of the Indian National Flag or of any measures of the Government with a view to obtain an amendment of the Constitution of India or an alteration of the Indian National Flag by lawful means do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.--The expression "Indian National Flag" includes any picture, painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible representation of the Indian National Flag, or of any part or parts thereof, made of any substance or represented on any substance.
Explanation 3.-- The expression "public place" means any place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public and Includes any public conveyance.
2[Explanation 4.--The disrespect to the Indian National Flag means and includes--
(a) a gross affront or indignity offered to the Indian National Flag; or
(b) dipping the Indian National Flag in salute to any person or thing; or
(c) flying the Indian National Flag at half-mast except on occasions on which the Indian National Flag is flown at half-mast on public buildings in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government; or
(d) using the Indian National Flag as a drapery in any form whatsoever except in State funerals or armed forces or other para-military forces funerals; or
3[(e) using the Indian National Flag,--
(i) as a portion of costume, uniform or accessory of any description which is worn below the waist of any person; or
(ii) by embroidering or printing it on cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, undergarments or any dress material; or]
(f) putting any kind of inscription upon the Indian National Flag; or
(g) using the Indian National Flag as a receptacle for receiving, delivering or carrying anything except flower petals before the Indian National Flag is unfurled as part of celebrations on special occasions including the Republic Day or the Independence day; or
(h) using the Indian National Flag as covering for a statute or a monument or a speaker's desk or a speaker's platform; or
(i) allowing the Indian National Flag to touch the ground or the floor or trail in water intentionally; or
(j) draping the Indian National Flag over the hood, top and sides or back or on a vehicle, train, boat or an aircraft or any other similar object; or
(k) using the Indian National Flag as a covering for a building; or
(l) intentionally displaying the Indian National Flag with the "saffron" down.]
How courts have applied section 2
- Intent to insult is crucial; artistic or celebratory use of the flag may not attract the section.1
- Allegations of physically disrespectful acts like throwing footwear at the flag can prima facie disclose the offence, surviving quashing.2
- Bail under the section is assessed with the totality of charges; instigation of large-scale violence and criminal antecedents weigh against grant.3,4
- A government notification referring to historical abuses does not necessarily disrespect the Constitution.5
- The National Anthem need not be mandatorily played in cinema halls; the matter is under consideration for possible legislative amendment.6
- Arrest protection under Arnesh Kumar guidelines has been applied to an offence under this section.7
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly involve pre-trial applications in cases where Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 was charged alongside other offences, often riot-related. Courts in these orders assessed whether allegations prima facie disclosed the offence and how that bore on bail or quashing, rather than finally construing the section's elements.8,9,10,2,11,3
On quashing, courts have looked to the intent behind the alleged act: a cartoon of the National Flag and Mahatma Gandhi made for Independence Day celebrations was held not to attract the section because the intent was not to insult, while allegations of throwing footwear at the flag disclosed the offence on their face, leaving defences to trial. A notification condemning abuse of power during the Emergency was held not to disrespect the Constitution or violate the Act. The Supreme Court has made playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls optional and has referred regulation of the Anthem and possible amendments to the Act to a Committee.1,2,5,6
In bail matters, the section's presence is usually one factor among several. Murders where the charge was one of several booked offences including rioting and arson, bail was refused where case-diary material showed the applicants as key instigators, given pending criminal antecedents and the gravity of the violence. Bail was more readily considered where the charge was joined with lesser offences and a charge-sheet had been filed after supplementary investigation, and a court has protected an accused from arrest under the section by applying the Arnesh Kumar guidelines for offences punishable up to seven years. In a case where publicity material allegedly hurt community sentiments, regular bail was rejected although the court acknowledged the need to consider custody time. A section 2 charge also featured in a passport release case, where the court held mere pendency does not disqualify travel and only the Passport Authority may impound a passport.9,11,10,3,12,4,8,7,13,14,15,16,17
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 2
National Anthem; cinema halls; playing of National Anthem before feature films made optional/directory; modification of interim order dated 30.11.2016; Article 32 PIL; Article 51A(a) fundamental duties; respect to National Anthem; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 ss.2 and 3; Act 31 of 2003;
DisposedOpenBail — Regular bail under S.483, Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Applicant in custody since 30.01.2026 in Crime No. 379/2024, P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 294, 332, 333, 353, 435, 436, 427, 307, 506, 395, 397, 120(B) IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the…
AllowedOpenChhattisgarh HC (Bilaspur), 2026:CGHC:23391, 19-05-2026, Narendra Kumar Vyas J — nine MCRC bail applications REJECTED: MCRC 2105, 2262, 2266, 3441/2026 (Amit Baghel); 3166, 3170, 3178, 3426/2026 (Ajay Yadav); 3114/2026 (Dinesh Kumar Verma). Crime/FIR Nos. 378, 379, 380, 383 of 2024, P.S.
DismissedOpenRegular bail rejected; Section 483 BNSS; Balodabazar violence 10.06.2024; Satnami community Jaitkham protest; rioting, assault on police, arson, damage to public property Rs. 13-15 crores; IPC Ss.147, 148, 149, 186, 294, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 427, 435, 436, 440, 506, 152, 120B;
DismissedOpenBail refused; Amit Baghel; Ajay Yadav; Dinesh Kumar Verma; MCRC 2105/3441/3426/3114/2262/2266/3178/3170/3166 of 2026; Section 483 BNSS; Crime Nos. 378/379/380/383 of 2024 P.S. City Kotwali Baloda Bazar; 10.06.2024 Balodabazar Collectorate riot and arson; Chhattisgarh Kranti Sena; key instigators;
DismissedOpenHausila Verma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 2 Others
Outcome: AllowedQuashing of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 1157 of 2010 (IPC ss. 147, 323, 394, 427, 504, 506; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act s. 3(1) 10 as printed; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act s. 2), P.S.
AllowedOpen
Show 6 more
The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the release of the applicant's passport, which had been seized by the police during a criminal investigation.
A public interest litigation challenged a government notification declaring 25th June as 'Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas', contending it insulted the Constitution. The Court held the notification concerned abuse of power during the Emergency, not disrespect to the Constitution, and dismissed the petition.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenThe High Court dismissed petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from an incident where petitioners waylaid a Minister's car and threw footwear at the national flag.
DismissedOpenThe High Court quashed criminal proceedings against newspaper editors and publishers for publishing a cartoon depicting Mahatma Gandhi and the National Flag forming the number '70' to celebrate the 70th Independence Day.
AllowedOpenIn an appeal under section 21(4) NIA Act against refusal of bail for offences under sections 120B, 121A, 153A and 204 IPC and sections 13, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 40 UAPA arising from a conspiracy to radicalise youth and establish a caliphate, the court held that statements of protected witnesses and other…
DismissedOpenNeutral citation 2023:AHC:184670-DB. Protection-from-arrest writ petition (CRIMICAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 15022 of 2023, decided 22.9.2023) disposed of on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines as reiterated by Md. Asfak Alam (SC, 31.07.2023);
DisposedOpen
Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.), pronounced 19-05-2026: nine MCRCs (Nos. 2105, 3441, 3426, 3114, 2262, 2266, 3178, 3170, 3166 of 2026) seeking first regular bail under S. 483 BNSS in FIRs/Crimes Nos. 378, 379, 380, 383 of 2024, P.S.
DismissedOpenRegular bail rejected under S.483 BNSS; MCRC Nos. 2105, 2262, 2266, 3441, 3426, 3114, 3178, 3170, 3166 of 2026; applicants Amit Baghel, Ajay Yadav, Dinesh Kumar Verma alias Mandal; FIR/Crime Nos. 378, 379, 380, 383 of 2024, P.S. City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, Balodabazar-Bhatapara;
DismissedOpenRegular bail rejected; Section 483 BNSS; MCRC Nos. 2105, 3441, 3426, 3114, 2262, 2266, 3178, 3170, 3166 of 2026; Amit Baghel; Ajay Yadav; Dinesh Kumar Verma; FIR 378, 379, 380, 383 of 2024 PS City Kotwali Baloda Bazar Balodabazar-Bhatapara; 10.06.2024 Balodabazar agitation; mob of 7000-8000; rioting; instigation;
DismissedOpenChhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur (Ramesh Sinha, CJ), 09/04/2026 – batch of 14 MCRCs (Nos. 2145, 2465, 2374, 2275, 2277, 2281, 2185, 2204, 2200, 2194, 2192, 2191, 2184, 2150 of 2026), Amit Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh.
DisposedOpenBail — regular bail rejected but temporary bail/parole for 3 months granted with conditions — alleged inflammatory remarks in video/interview against Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya, Dr.
DisposedOpenAmit Baghel; regular bail rejected; temporary bail/parole three months; Section 483 BNSS; Sections 299, 302, 353(1)(c), 353(2), 196(1) BNS; objectionable remarks video/interview; Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya; Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee; Maharaja Agrasen; Shri Jhulelal; communal harmony; public order;
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Quashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 Section 2(4)(l); inverted National Flag saffron down; Republic Day 26.01.2017; Shri Rajani Society terrace; mens rea intentional display; mere presence not an offence; watchman statement Deepak Jaysingh;
AllowedOpenQuashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 Section 2(4)(l); inverted National Flag saffron down; Republic Day 26.01.2017; Shri Rajani Society terrace; mens rea intentional display; mere presence not an offence; watchman statement Deepak Jaysingh;
AllowedOpenQuashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 Section 2(4)(l); inverted National Flag saffron down; Republic Day 26.01.2017; Shri Rajani Society terrace; mens rea intentional display; mere presence not an offence; watchman statement Deepak Jaysingh;
AllowedOpenQuashing of FIR Section 528 BNSS; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971 Section 2(4)(l); inverted National Flag saffron down; Republic Day 26.01.2017; Shri Rajani Society terrace; mens rea intentional display; mere presence not an offence; watchman statement Deepak Jaysingh;
AllowedOpen