Disposed

R. Kannan Govindarajulu v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Jun 2015WP/23011/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning the alleged violation of the Emblems and Names Act by a political party's flag, the petition was disposed of by agreeing to proceed under the specific Act rather than through court intervention.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with the instruction that the Union of India proceeds with appropriate legal proceedings under the Emblems and Names Act.

R. Kannan Govindarajulu Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 03.06.2015

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Writ Petition No.23011 of 2014

¶7

R.Kannan Govindarajulu Ex-Serviceman/Gandhian No.25, Sakthi Sree Nagar, Kilmaruvathur Village, Kancheepuram District 603319. ... Petitioner Versus 1.Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary Public (General -1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The President, Puratchi Bharatham Party, 54, National Highways, Poonamallee Chennai 600056. 3.The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi. 4. The Central Election Commission of India, represented by its Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi. (R.3 and R.4 impleaded as per order dated 28.10.2014 by CJ & MSNJ in W.P.No.23011 of 2014)and amended as per order dated 17.2.2015 in WP.23011/2014. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1^st respondent to ban Puratchi Bharatham Party Flag.

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For Petitioner ::: Mr.R.Kannan (Party in Person) For Respondents ::: Mr.S.T.S.Murthy Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.S.Prabakaran

¶11

for Mr.N.Subramani for R.2

¶12

Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶13

Assistant Solicitor Generalfor R3

¶14

Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal for M/s.G.R.Associates for R.4

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶17

The petitioner through this Public Interest Litigation seeks to raise the issue of the second respondent using the National Emblem (Ashoka Chakra) as part of its Flag, thereby violating Section-3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.

¶18

The stand of the second respondent is that there are enough distinguishing features and there is no violation of Section 3. On the other hand, the stand taken by the third respondent is that the Chakra used in the Flag of the second respondent is same/similar to the “Ashoka Chakra” and there is violation of Section-3 and it is not permissible to be used by the second respondent.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid stand of the third respondent, learned counsel for the second respondent states that he is still not giving up his rights to use the flag as modulated and it is open to the third respondent to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for alleged violation of Section-3 as aforesaid, which will be defended by the second respondent.

¶20

This being the stand of the second respondent, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the third respondent states that the said respondent will proceed in accordance with law, more specifically the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

¶21

The statements having been taken on record, the writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs. ksr

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶23

True Copy

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

Copy to:

¶27

The Secretary, Government Of Tamil Nadu,
Public (General -1) Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The President, Puratchi Bharatham Party,
54, National Highways, Poonamallee
Chennai 600056.
3.The Secretary,
Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
Department of Consumer Affairs,
New Delhi.
4. The Chief Election Commission of India,
New Delhi.
+ 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 26263
+ 1 cc to Mr.R.Govindarajuly, Advocate SR 26311
+ 1 cc to M/s.Su.Srinivasan, Advocate SR 26392
+ 1 cc to Mr.N.Subramani, Advocate SR 26501
sai(co)
prk12/6
W.P.No.23011 of 2014

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R. Kannan Govindarajulu v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Kannan Govindarajulu v. The Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Tube Investments of Vs C. Govindarajan

Natesan Vs the District Collector

Vs

Federation of Associations of Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Rajashree Age 42 Years Vs Union of India

M.Sivaramalingam Vs The Commissioner