Allahabad High Court, in Vasik Tyagi v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27331 of 2025, delivered a significant ruling on 8 September 2025, denying bail to an individual accused of uploading derogatory Facebook posts against the Indian National Flag and glorifying Pakistan. The Court underscored that the National Flag is a symbol of pride, patriotism, and unity, and any act of insulting it amounts to an attack on national honour. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s firm stance against acts capable of inciting communal disharmony and disturbing public order in the digital era.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged by Sub-Inspector Amit Kumar on 16 May 2025 at Police Station Charthawal, Muzaffarnagar. The FIR alleged that the applicant, Vasik Tyagi, had posted on Facebook a morphed photograph of the Indian National Flag placed on the ground with a dog sitting upon it, accompanied by derogatory remarks such as “Kamran Bhatti Proud of You. Pakistan Zindabad.”
The FIR alleged that such posts were anti-national, supporting Pakistan at a time when India continues to face terrorism sponsored from across the border. It was further alleged that the posts hurt religious sentiments and had the potential to create enmity, hatred, and communal disharmony.
Following the investigation, the police arrested the applicant on 7 June 2025 and seized a Vivo mobile phone allegedly used to upload the posts. The applicant’s bail plea was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, on 21 July 2025. Thereafter, he approached the High Court.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
1. Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971
- Section 2 of the Act makes it a punishable offence if any person intentionally insults the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India.
- The punishment prescribed is imprisonment up to three years, or fine, or both.
- The Act further lays down guidelines on the proper display and respect due to the National Flag, emphasising that it should never touch the ground, floor, or be used disrespectfully.
2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
In the present case, the FIR invoked Sections 152, 192, 197(1) of BNS, 2023:
Section 152: Punishes anyone who excites or attempts to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities, encourages separatist feelings, or endangers the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. Punishment is life imprisonment or up to seven years with fine.
Section 192: Covers illegal provocation likely to cause rioting. If rioting occurs, punishment may extend to one year or fine or both. If not, punishment may extend to six months or fine or both.
Section 197(1): Penalizes words, signs, or electronic communication that (a) question loyalty of a class of people to the Constitution or India’s sovereignty, (b) advocate denial of rights to a class of citizens based on religion, race, language, region, caste, or community, (c) cause disharmony or hatred between groups, or (d) spread false or misleading information jeopardizing India’s sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security. Punishment is up to three years imprisonment or fine or both.
3. Constitutional Dimension
Article 51A(a) of the Constitution places a fundamental duty on every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem.
The Court, while denying bail, implicitly reinforced this constitutional duty, holding that acts of disrespect to the flag cannot be shielded under the garb of liberty.
Arguments by the Applicant
Counsel for the applicant argued that:
- The accused was innocent and falsely implicated.
- He neither uploaded nor liked any anti-national post.
- He had no intention of insulting the sovereignty and integrity of India.
- He had been in custody since 7 June 2025, and therefore, should be released on bail pending trial.
Submissions by the Prosecution
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, strongly opposed the bail application. The key points raised were:
- Digital evidence: Cyber reports from Meta confirmed that the posts were uploaded through the applicant’s Facebook ID registered on his mobile number. Specific IP addresses were linked to his phone numbers.
- Seizure of device: The Vivo mobile phone allegedly used for the offence was seized and sent for forensic examination.
- Witness statements: Independent witnesses supported the prosecution’s version, affirming that the applicant’s acts could provoke animosity and disturb peace.
- Criminal antecedents: The applicant had a prior criminal record, including cases under the Arms Act and IPC (Sections 307, 504).
- Seriousness of the offence: Insulting the National Flag was argued to be a grave act that should not be taken lightly.
Observations of the High Court
Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh, after hearing both sides, made several strong observations:
- Authenticity of Posts Established: The investigation confirmed that the posts were made from the applicant’s Facebook account. The defence failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their presence.
- Derogatory Content: The comment “Ab to kutty b mot rahe h” (even dogs are dying now) accompanying the image of the flag was held to be highly objectionable and derogatory.
- Potential for Communal Disharmony: The Court noted that the posts were provocative, objectionable, and capable of disturbing public peace and order. They indicated an inclination towards glorifying anti-national ideology.
- Symbolism of the National Flag: The Court eloquently described the tricolour as a symbol of pride, patriotism, and the aspirations of the Indian people. Any act of insult—whether burning, mutilating, defiling, or trampling—is a punishable offence. Citizens are duty-bound to safeguard the honour of the flag.
- Public Safety and National Honour: Persons maligning the country and its symbols were described as hazardous to society, undeserving of sympathetic consideration in bail matters.
Decision
After considering the gravity of the offence, the evidence on record, and the applicant’s criminal history, the Court held that releasing him on bail would not be appropriate.
Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
Broader Legal and Social Implications
- Protection of National Symbols: The judgment reinforces the principle that national symbols are sacrosanct. Any insult to the National Flag is treated as an attack on the sovereignty, integrity, and dignity of the nation.
- Digital Responsibility: The case illustrates how social media platforms can become arenas for spreading provocative and objectionable content. Courts are increasingly relying on cyber forensics and digital evidence to establish authorship of such acts.
- Balance Between Liberty and National Security: While bail is a rule and jail an exception, the Court here emphasised that individual liberty cannot override collective national interest when posts promote anti-national ideology and risk disturbing communal harmony.
- Precedent for Future Cases: The ruling sets a precedent that derogatory online posts against the National Flag or in support of hostile nations will be treated as serious offences, with bail being denied where such acts pose a threat to peace and order.
Conclusion
Allahabad High Court’s decision in Vasik Tyagi v. State of U.P. serves as a stern reminder that insulting the National Flag is not just a symbolic act of disrespect but a punishable offence with serious legal consequences. By denying bail, the Court has sent a strong message that digital platforms cannot be misused to glorify anti-national sentiments or denigrate symbols of national unity.
The judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s role in safeguarding national integrity, particularly in an era where social media posts have the potential to inflame communal passions and undermine societal harmony.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams