IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 4530 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SRI.KALARKODE VENUGOPALAN NAIR, S/O.LATE. SEKHARA PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, SREE SADANAM, VADAKKAL POST, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 003. BY PARTY IN PERSON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR (GENERAL), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 31. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (LAW), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. *ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED. 5. LIEUT COLONEL N.D.JOY (RETD), ADVOCATE, NEELAMKAIL BHAVAN, CHERUPARAMBATH, 28/3227. IST CROSS ROAD KADAVAN THRA, COCHIN 682 020. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 19.2.08 IN IA. NO.2395/2008. ADV.SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA FOR R2 & R3 ADV. SRI.N.D.JOY, FOR ADDL. R5 SMT.RANI JOY FOR ADDL.R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, ALONG WITH R.P. NO.557 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4530 of 2008 and R.P.No.557 of 2008 in I.A.Nos.4167 & 4747 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No.4530 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 25th November, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This writ petition is filed in public interest contending that the National Emblem exhibited on the High Court building is not in accordance with the statutory specifications and to ensure that it is exhibited in accordance with the law. Even though there was a prayer to punish the persons concerned, that prayer was deleted subsequently. Petitioner himself appeared before this court and argued the case personally. He stated that his only intention is that if there is a mistake, that should be corrected. The High Court, being a model institution should exhibit the National Emblem only in the proper manner. The major contention is that as per the specification pertaining to the National Emblem, “Satyameva Jayate” should be written in Devanagari script below the profile of the Lion Capital and that is conspicuously absent in the emblem exhibited on the High Court building. 2. Now, we will consider the statutory provisions regarding the above. The statutory provisions are now codified under the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005. Section 3 of the Act provides as follows: W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5 “3. Prohibition of improper use of emblem.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall use the emblem or any colourable imitation thereof in any manner which tends to create an impression that it relates to the Government or that it is an official document of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of that Government as may be authorised by it in this behalf.” The section authorises general powers of Central Government to regulate use of emblem. It also authorises the Central Government to provide for guidelines for display of the emblem on public buildings in India, diplomatic missions and on the buildings occupied by India's consulates abroad and also to specify the design of the official seal consisting of the emblem. Orders relating to State Emblem of India passed by the Central Government Ministry of Home Affairs is produced as Annexure E. It states that State Emblem has been adopted by various States including Kerala State. Paragraph VII deals with display of the State Emblem on public buildings. Clause (1) of paragraph VII reads as follows: “(1) The State Emblem may be displayed only on very important public buildings like the Rashtrapati Bhavan, Raj Bhavans, Raj Niwases, Supreme Court, High Courts, Central Secretariat, Parliament House, State/Union Territory Secretariats and Legislatures.” W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5 There is a prescription at paragraph XI that the State Emblem shall not be used for any trade or business. Various directions are given as to how State Emblem can be depicted on vehicles, stationery etc. by the constitutional functionaries. With regard to the emblem, Clause (1), paragraph I of Annexure E order states how State Emblem should be depicted. It reads as follows: “I–STATE EMBLEM OF INDIA – DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN (1) The State Emblem of India is an adaptation from the Sarnath Museum. The Lion Capital has four lions mounted back to back on a circular abacus. The frieze of the abacus is adorned with sculptures in high relief of an elephant, a galloping horse, a bull and a lion separated by intervening Dharma Chakras. The abacus rests on a bell-shaped lotus. The profile of the Lion Capital showing three lions mounted on the abacus with a Dharma Chakra in the centre, a bull on the right and a galloping horse on the left, and outlines of Dharma Chakras on the extreme right and left has been adopted as the State Emblem of India. The bell-shaped lotus has been omitted. The motto “Satyameva Jayate” - Truth alone triumphs – written in Devanagari script below the profile of the Lion Capital is part of the State Emblem of India. The motto is taken from the Mundaka Upanishad, an ancient scripture.” Similarly, in the Schedule to the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 also two models are given as Appendix I and II as follows: W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5 In view of section 3 of the Act, even a colourable imitation of the National Emblem cannot be depicted. In the emblem exhibited on the High Court building the motto “Satyameva Jayate” in Devanagari script is not inscribed below the profile of the Lion Capital. 3. It is true that the emblem as now seen was exhibited not for any wrongful gain or with any malafide intention but by an oversight. Therefore, we direct the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala to make such alterations in the emblem and inscribe “Satyameva Jayate” in Devanagari script below the profile of the Lion Capital, as prescribed under rules, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This court appreciates the effort made by the petitioner, Sri.Kalarcode Venugopalan Nair in bringing this matter to the notice of the court. We also appreciate the efforts taken by Lt.Colonel N.D.Joy (Retd.), a practising advocate of this court by impleading himself in the case and pointing out the statutory provisions regarding the matter. It is submitted that on an interim application, cost of Rs.10,000/= was ordered and R.P.No.557 of 2008 was filed. Since the petitioner has pointed out the defects only in public interest without any malafide intention and has also deleted the prayer to prosecute the officers concerned, W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5 the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner is also deleted. The writ petition and review petition are allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5 J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- I.A.No.10663 of 2008 in W.P.(C).No.4530 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 26th August, 2008 ORDER Koshy,J . The petitioner wants to delete the prayers (iii) and (iv) in the writ petition. The petitioner who filed the writ petition has got right to apply for deletion of the prayers. The only persons who are entitled to oppose are the contesting respondents or the court and an impleaded party cannot question the same as these prayers are not against the impleaded party. After considering the prayers, we allow this application for deleting the prayers (iii) and (iv) from the writ petition. Post the writ petition for hearing on 23.9.2008. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH JUDGE tks W.P.(C)4530/2008 & R.P.557/2008 5 J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4530 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June, 2008 ORDER Koshy,J . When the case came up for hearing on 29.5.2008, the matter was argued partly. We expressed our views and at the request of the petitioner the case was adjourned to 2.6.2008. On 2.6.2008 petitioner wanted to get instructions from the client whether they wish to withdraw the writ petition and at his request the case was adjourned. Today, it is requested for an adjournment as counsel for the petitioner is not well. Another petition was also filed for hearing of R.P.No.557 of 2008. If the writ petition is not maintainable, the question of hearing impleaded parties also will not arise. Post along with R.P.No.557/2008 on 14.8.2008. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks