'Misconceived': Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Seeking 'Separate Flag' For The State

Mustafa Plumber

25 Oct 2024 1:00 PM IST

  • Misconceived: Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Separate Flag For The State

    The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a separate flag for the State.A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed observed, “Matters of grievance of such nature would hardly fall within the domain of the court jurisdiction, much less in the realm of public interest jurisdiction. The petition is misconceived...

    The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a separate flag for the State.

    A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed observed, “Matters of grievance of such nature would hardly fall within the domain of the court jurisdiction, much less in the realm of public interest jurisdiction. The petition is misconceived and dismissed.

    Advocate Umapathi S appearing for the petition argued that an expert committee had been constituted including eminent writers on his representation, insisting for a separate flag for the State.

    Further he submitted that the Constitution of India does not prohibit having a separate flag for states. He also relied on the opinion of the Advocate General based on which the expert committee was constituted.

    It was said “Across the state there is a demand for a state flag and an unofficial flag is being hoisted across the state and creating a confusion among the citizens. There is no prohibition in any of the Act also.” He added that it is a sensitive issue and will affect the sentiments of the people of Karnataka.

    The plea prayed for a directions to the state government to place the recommendation of the aforesaid committee before the court for its consideration and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.

    The court on dismissing the plea said “The petition is not, however, precluded from pursuing his representations stated to have been pending.

    On the apprehension raised by the petitioner that state government would not act on his representation and it be directed to decide it in a specific time limit, the court orally said, “You have flagged your flag and we have flagged our order.

    Appearance: Advocate Umapathi S for Petitioner.

    AGA Niloufer Akbar for Respondents

    Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 449.

    Case Title: BHIMAPPA GUNDAPPA GADAD AND State of Karnataka

    Case No: WP 26739/2023

    Next Story