The Tricolour’s Democratic Journey, From State Emblem to Citizen’s Right

The Tricolour’s Democratic Journey, From State Emblem to Citizen’s Right

The Indian national flag, the Tiranga, is more than a ceremonial cloth of saffron, white, and green. Its journey from the hands of the state into the hands and hearts of ordinary citizens is, in essence, a microcosm of India’s own democratic evolution. While its adoption on July 22, 1947, marked the culmination of the freedom struggle, its true democratization was a protracted, contested, and profoundly legal and civic battle that unfolded over the subsequent five decades. The story is one of restrictive codes, citizen-led judicial challenges, and landmark rulings that transformed the flag from a revered but distant state symbol into a living, breathing marker of constitutional belonging and an expression of fundamental rights. This journey underscores a vital democratic principle: that national symbols gain true power not from enforced veneration, but from empowered, respectful engagement by the citizenry.

The Post-Independence Paradox: Reverence with Restriction

In the immediate aftermath of Independence, the tricolour occupied a complex space. It was undoubtedly a revered symbol, imbued with the sacrifices of the freedom struggle. The Constituent Assembly and the leaders of the new republic were clear that it was a non-sectarian emblem of a nascent constitutional democracy. However, in practice, access to and use of the flag were tightly controlled by the state through a web of regulations, most notably the Flag Code of India and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

This created a paradoxical situation. The flag belonged to the nation, but the nation’s citizens could not freely fly it. Its display was largely confined to government buildings, official ceremonies, and specific national holidays. For the average citizen, hoisting the flag on one’s home, business, or vehicle was often bureaucratically fraught or outright prohibited. This regime fostered a culture of government control rather than civic trust. The flag was an object to be viewed on official occasions, not a symbol to be actively lived with and embraced in daily life. This restriction, as argued later, limited emotional ownership and deprived citizens of a potent means of democratic participation and expression.

The Spark of Dissent: Naveen Jindal and the Constitutional Challenge

The catalyst for change was a young, private citizen: Naveen Jindal. As a student at the University of Texas, Dallas, Jindal had been struck by the sight of Americans freely flying their national flag. Upon returning to India and joining his family’s business, he sought to fly the Indian flag at their factory in Raigarh, Odisha. His application was denied by the district administration, citing the restrictive Flag Code.

This denial sparked a constitutional awakening. Jindal could not reconcile the idea of a free democracy with a prohibition on citizens respectfully displaying their national emblem. His was not an act of defiance, but one of belonging—a desire to express his patriotism actively. On January 26, 1993, he hoisted the flag at the Jindal House in Parliament Street, Delhi, and subsequently filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the restrictions.

This was a stellar example of citizen-led constitutionalism. Jindal accessed democratic institutions to question a law that he believed infringed upon a fundamental civic right. His argument was simple yet profound: if the flag symbolizes the nation and its people, then the people must have the right to fly it as an expression of their constitutional identity.

The Judicial Milestones: Courts as Catalysts for Democratization

The legal battle that ensued produced two landmark judgments that form the twin pillars of the flag’s democratization.

1. The Delhi High Court Judgment (1995): The High Court, in a progressive ruling, upheld Jindal’s plea. It held that the Flag Code, being an executive instruction, could not curtail the fundamental rights of citizens. It recognized the right of citizens to fly the national flag throughout the year, provided it was done with dignity and respect. This was a radical departure from the status quo, shifting the paradigm from state permission to citizen right.

2. The Supreme Court Judgment – Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal (2004): The Government of India appealed the High Court decision. Two decades ago, on January 23, 2004, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict. In a deeply reasoned judgment, the Court constitutionally entrenched the citizen’s right to fly the flag. It ruled that this right flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution—the freedom of speech and expression.

The Court’s reasoning was eloquent and transformative. It stated that the flag is a “symbol of national respect” and its display is a “right to expression of one’s feeling and sentiments.” The Court drew a distinction between the flag as a symbol of the state and as a symbol of the nation. While the state could regulate its use to prevent disrespect, it could not monopolize it to prevent expression. The judgment declared, “The value of the national flag as a symbol of nationhood cannot be underestimated… The right to fly the national flag is not an absolute right but it is a qualified right subject to the regulations that may be framed by the State.”

This was a masterful balance: it affirmed the citizen’s fundamental right while upholding the state’s duty to protect the flag’s dignity. It transformed the flag from a passive emblem of authority into an active instrument of citizen expression.

Legislative Corroboration: Amending the Law

The judicial victory was soon followed by legislative action. In 2005, the government amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and significantly liberalized the Flag Code of India. The amendments explicitly allowed citizens to display the flag on their homes, vehicles (in a dignified manner), and, most notably, on clothing and uniforms. This last provision was particularly symbolic, allowing the tricolour to be worn close to the heart as a mark of pride, subject to guidelines on respectful placement.

These changes marked the state’s formal acceptance of the judicial mandate. The law now caught up with the constitutional spirit, dismantling the architecture of control and replacing it with a framework of regulated freedom.

Beyond the Courtroom: Civic Engagement and Emotional Ownership

Naveen Jindal and his wife, Shalu Jindal, understood that legal victory alone was insufficient. Democratization required a cultural shift—moving the flag from court documents into the collective consciousness. To this end, they established the Flag Foundation of India. This non-profit organization embarked on a mission to “take the flag to every corner of the country,” organizing mass flag-hoisting ceremonies, educational programs in schools, and distribution drives. The Foundation’s work has been instrumental in strengthening the emotional connection between citizens and the flag, especially among the youth.

This phase of the journey represents the transition from a right claimed to a right lived. The act of flying the flag became an act of civic responsibility and participatory patriotism. It embodies what can be termed dhvaja upasana—a reverential engagement with a national symbol that reminds citizens of their constitutional duties and their role in the ongoing project of nation-building. The flag on a farmer’s tractor, a shopkeeper’s storefront, or a student’s backpack is a daily, decentralized reaffirmation of the republic.

Historical Continuity: From Sister Nivedita to Hansa Mehta to Naveen Jindal

The democratization narrative finds powerful echoes in the flag’s very origins, creating a remarkable continuity. The first version of an Indian national flag was the Vajra Flag, designed in 1904 by Sister Nivedita (Margaret Noble), a disciple of Swami Vivekananda. It was a symbol of resistance and indigenous identity.

Later, during the Constituent Assembly debates, it was Hansa Mehta who, on behalf of the women of India, presented the final version of the tricolour to the Assembly. She emphasized it as a tribute to Indian women’s contribution to the freedom struggle and constitution-making. This act framed the flag from its inception as a gift from the people (represented by its women) to the new state, not the other way around.

Naveen Jindal’s struggle can be seen as reclaiming this foundational vision. He operationalized Mehta’s symbolic presentation into a tangible, legal right. His challenge was, in spirit, a demand to realize the flag’s promise as a “shared constitutional inheritance,” as the article calls it—an inheritance that had been held in trust by the state but rightfully belonged in the hands of the people.

The Deeper Meaning: Flag as a Marker of Constitutional Belonging

The tricolour’s journey, therefore, is the story of India’s democratic maturation. It reflects a shift from a subject-state relationship (where subjects show deference to state symbols) to a citizen-constitution relationship (where citizens engage with national symbols as rights-bearing individuals).

The freely flying flag is a daily plebiscite on the idea of India. It is a silent yet powerful statement of allegiance not to a government or a party, but to the constitutional values of liberty, equality, and fraternity that the colours represent. In a diverse, often argumentative democracy, the flag serves as a unifying fabric—a shared symbol that transcends region, language, religion, and political affiliation. Its democratization has made it a true people’s flag.

Conclusion: A Flag for the People, By the People

The confluence of anniversaries we mark—the 22nd year of the Supreme Court judgment, the 30th year of the High Court ruling, the 20th year of the legislative amendment—is not a coincidence. It is a testament to the organic, multi-institutional process of democratic deepening. It involved a citizen’s courage, a judiciary’s wisdom, a legislature’s responsiveness, and finally, a citizenry’s embrace.

Today, when we see the tricolour fluttering from countless homes during national events or pinned proudly on a lapel, we are witnessing the living outcome of this democratic journey. The flag is no longer locked away in protocol manuals; it flies in the wind of freedom that the Constitution guarantees. Its journey from the pedestal to the public square is a powerful reminder that in a vibrant democracy, the ultimate custodians of national symbols are not officials, but the people themselves. The tricolour’s true triumph lies not in how high it flies on government poles, but in how deeply it is planted in the hearts and hands of a billion Indians.

Q&A: The Democratization of the Indian National Flag

Q1: What was the key legal and cultural paradox surrounding the Indian national flag after Independence?
A1: After Independence, the tricolour was a revered symbol of the freedom struggle and the new nation, but its use was heavily restricted by the state. Laws like the Flag Code of India and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act limited its display largely to government buildings and official occasions. This created a paradox: the flag symbolically belonged to the people, but the people themselves were denied the right to fly it freely. This fostered a culture of state control rather than civic ownership, keeping the flag at an emotional and physical distance from the citizenry.

Q2: Who was Naveen Jindal, and what was the constitutional significance of his legal challenge?
A2: Naveen Jindal was a young industrialist and citizen who, after seeing the practice in the US, sought to fly the Indian flag at his factory. When denied permission, he filed a writ petition challenging the restrictions. His case, Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal, became a landmark in citizen-led constitutionalism. It forced the judiciary to examine whether the state could monopolize a national symbol. The Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling in his favor established that flying the flag is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), transforming it from a state-conferred privilege into a citizen’s constitutional right.

Q3: What were the two landmark judicial rulings that catalyzed the flag’s democratization?
A3:

1. Delhi High Court Judgment (1995): This ruling first upheld the citizen’s right to fly the flag year-round, stating that executive instructions (the Flag Code) could not override fundamental rights.

2. Supreme Court Judgment (2004): In the Naveen Jindal case, the SC constitutionally entrenched this right. It brilliantly distinguished the flag as a symbol of the nation (belonging to the people) from a symbol of the state. The Court held that respectful display is a form of expression and a marker of constitutional identity, thereby democratizing the flag’s essence.

Q4: How did the legislative and civic response complement the judicial victories?
A4: Following the SC verdict, the government amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act in 2005 and liberalized the Flag Code. These changes legally permitted citizens to fly the flag on homes, vehicles, and even apparel, formalizing the judicial mandate. Beyond the law, civic engagement was crucial. Naveen and Shalu Jindal established the Flag Foundation of India, which worked to foster an emotional connection with the flag through mass hoisting, education, and distribution. This ensured the right moved from legal text to lived practice, building a culture of participatory patriotism.

Q5: How does the flag’s journey reflect the broader evolution of Indian democracy?
A5: The tricolour’s journey mirrors India’s shift from a post-colonial state with a paternalistic relationship with its citizens to a mature democracy with an empowered citizenry. It showcases the dynamic interplay between citizens, judiciary, and legislature that defines a healthy democracy. The flag’s transition from a state-controlled emblem to a citizen-owned symbol of expression represents the deepening of constitutional culture. It underscores that true national integration and patriotism are not enforced by restriction but flourish through the respectful exercise of rights. The flag flying freely across the country is a daily, decentralized celebration of this democratic spirit.