Register cases against officials misusing national, state emblems: Madras High Court directs police

The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the police to file cases against former ministers, legislators and judges found to be misusing national and state emblems [S Mukachand Bothra (Deceased) through M Gagan Bothra v. The Central Government]..The order was passed by Justice SM Subramaniam, who held that no person shall use official emblems for personal reasons unless permitted by the Central government. "In the absence of any authorisation under the provisions of the Act and Rules, the usage must be prevented as there is a specific prohibition under the Act. Therefore, no former functionaries, like former Members of Parliament, former Members of Legislative Assembly, retired officials of Commissions or Committees, Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, Panchayati Raj Institutions, Parishads, Non-Government Organisations, Universities are authorised to use the Symbols, Emblems, Stickers, Flag, Names of the Institution or Government Names, etc., in their vehicles or in their letter pads or in the buildings," the Court stated..It, therefore, passed the following directions while disposing of the plea:(i) The 5th respondent/the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu is directed to issue wide publications through Visual Media and Press Media, providing an opportunity to all concerned to remove all kind of unauthorised usage of Flags, Emblems, Names, Symbols, Stickers, Seals, etc., within a period of one month, from the date of such publication. (ii) The 5th respondent is directed to register cases under the provisions of the Act, on expiry of the said period of one month and prosecute the offenders by following the procedures as contemplated under law. (iii) The respondents 3 to 5 are directed to sensitise the competent authorities/Police officials for the purpose of securing informations regarding misuse of Flags, Emblems, Stickers, Names, etc., and in the event of any violation on the part of the law enforcing officials strict actions are to be taken against such officials, for dereliction of duty. (iv) The 5th respondent is directed to instruct the Subordinate Police officials across the State of Tamil Nadu to register cases under the provisions of the Act and Rules, in the event of receiving information from any person and by verifying/investigating the genuinity of the informations and complaints. (v) The 5th respondent/the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu is directed to issue appropriate circular/instructions for implementation of Act and Rules, to all the Subordinates/Police officials, within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order copy in the official website of the High Court. The instructions to be issued shall contain the procedures to be followed for registration of cases by the competent authorities, in consonance with the Act and Rules..The petitioner, son of the original petitioner who died during the pendency of the case, claimed that former Member of Parliament and Congress lawmaker R Anbarasu was misusing the Indian National Emblem for personal gains. It was claimed that Anbarasu lodged a false complaint - arising out of a dispute over a loan repayment - against his father to the Commissioner of Police on his letter pad, which contained the Indian National Emblem.Based on the said complaint, the original petitioner was arrested, taken into custody for a period of 21 days and thereafter released on bail. On the date of filing of the complaint. Anbarasu was not a Member of Parliament and could not have used the emblem. Despite directions issued by the Central government asking the State government to take necessary action as per the law, none was taken against Anbarasu.The petitioner stated that that very purpose of the enactment of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, would become meaningless if such activities are allowed to continue..The Court noted that Section 7 of the Act provides that whoever misuses such emblems are liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. However, authorities were not lodging cases against violators using this provision, the Court lamented."...not even a single case has been registered under the provisions of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and the Rules framed thereunder. Even in the cases of impersonation, the cases are registered only under Section 170 and 171 of the IPC and the authorities miserably failed to register any case under the Act 50 of 2005," the single-judge observed. .Counsel for the State informed the Court that bank officials are unauthorizedly using the Government of India emblem and name on their vehicles and letter pads. Noting the same, the Court said,"All such unauthorised usages are to be prevented and they must be informed that all such Emblems, names etc., are to be removed from their vehicles, buildings etc., In the event of any violations, those Bank Officials or the officials of any Public institution, Government undertakings including all Commissions etc., must be prosecuted.".It was further observed that such former officials are misusing the emblems to escape from penal action by law enforcing authorities. Therefore, implementation of the Act and Rules is of paramount importance, the Court added."All such activities are to be prevented in the interest of public as such usage will create an impression as if they are holding an office and on many occasions, misuse would be an impediment to the competent authorities for initiation of action in the event of commission of any traffic offences and violations," the Court noted..It was further observed that the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 contemplates suo motu registration of complaint by the competent authorities/police authorities. The police constable on duty can provide information to the jurisdictional authorities, who are bound to verify the facts and details and accordingly register the case, the Court said."Any Police official on duty ordinarily witnessing such offences, is mandated to provide information to the jurisdictional Police authorities for registration of complaint. Complaint has to be registered by conducting initial verification / investigation. Therefore, it is important to sensitise the law enforcing officials so as to ensure that the Act is implemented effectively to achieve its purpose and object.".In the case at hand, the Court held that no relief is required to be granted, as the original petitioner had passed away..[Read Order]