Right to fly National Flag – Fundamental Right of Citizen – Mandamus would not lie against authority to act in contravention of provisions of statute: Constitution of India.

The writ petition was filed asking for a mandamus against the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, not to allow Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka, 2nd respondent herein, to hoist the Indian National Flag at the Office of Advocate General, High Court of Karnataka i.e., parallel to the Advocates’ Association, Bangalore and to ensure enough solidarity, unity and integrity of the Advocates’ Association and for a mandamus to the 2nd respondent, to participate in the Flag hoisting ceremony of the Advocates’ Association, on the eve of Independence Day.

According to the petitioner, respondent violated the established norm of celebration of Independency Day and Republic Day, by the Advocates’ Association. He submitted that a parallel function was being organised by the 2nd respondent, since, a Circular has been issued to all the Law Officers of the Government, to participate in the function, wherein, he would hoist the National Flag. Petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent by hoisting the National Flag, by organising a separate function, rather than participating in the Flag hoisting ceremony of the Advocates’ Association, has destroyed the unity and integrity of the Association.

The question that arose for consideration is, whether a mandamus can lie against the 1st respondent, not to allow the hoisting of Indian National Flag.

The Court held that the Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities.

Thus, it is clear, that for issue of a writ of mandamus, there must be a legal right with the petitioner, to compel the performance of statutory duty cast upon the 1st respondent. The petitioner was not able to show that there was any statute or rule having the force of law which cast a duty on respondent No.1, not to allow respondent No. 2, hoist the National Flag near the Office of the Advocate General and to ensure his participation in the Flag hoisting ceremony organised by the 3rd respondent, as the President of the Advocates’ Association.