Judgment :- S. Manikumar, J 1. A practicing lawyer and Executive Committee Member of Madurai Bar Association has filed this "pro bono publico" litigation seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to institute appropriate legal action against respondent No.6 in the interest of upholding the dignity of our National Flag on the basis of petitioners representation dated 18.02.2008 and for further orders. 2. Facts in brief are as follows: On 26.01.2008, being the Republic day, the National Flag was hoisted on all public and Government Buildings and establishments. It was also hoisted in the premises of All Women Police Station, Thirupparamkundram, Madurai, on the said day and it was not lowered till 05.00 p.m., on 01.02.2008. When the petitioner personally indicated to the authorities, they assured of lowering it. But on 02.02.2008, it was reported in "Dhina Thanthi" newspaper. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Inspector of Police, Thirupparamkundram, Madurai, by lodging a complaint to take appropriate legal action against the 6th respondent. Excepting the 5th respondent, the other respondents acknowledged the registered notice of the petitioner dated 18.02.2008 and the 5th respondent has evaded service. Accordingly, the registered post was returned as not claimed on 25.02.2008. In these circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 3. Referring to Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and the guidelines of the Union of India, Part II, Section 1 (2.2)(XI) of the Flag Code of India, 2002 and other provisions, Mr. B.N. Rajamohamed, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the act of the 6th respondent in not lowering the National Flag after sun set and allowing the Flag to fly till 01.02.2008 has caused indignity to our National Flag and it squarely falls within the purview of Explanation 4 to Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and violative of the Flag Code of India. 4. Placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Yaswant Sharma reported in 2004 (2)SCC 510 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restriction placed by the Union of India in maintaining the Flag Code has to be strictly followed to preserve the dignity of our National Flag and violation thereof, by respondent No.6 has affronted the great tradition of Indian National Flag. 5. Yaswant Sharma reported in 2004 (2)SCC 510 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restriction placed by the Union of India in maintaining the Flag Code has to be strictly followed to preserve the dignity of our National Flag and violation thereof, by respondent No.6 has affronted the great tradition of Indian National Flag. 5. When the matter came up for admission, on instructions, Mr. Pala.Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that on receipt of an information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupparamkundram has called for an explanation from the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruparamkundram, the 6th respondent herein. In her explanation submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupparamkundram, Sub Division Madurai, the 6th respondent has stated that she is working as Inspector of Police in All Women Police Station from 14.01.2008; that the National Flag is being hoisted daily in the morning and lowered in the evening by 6.00 p.m. On 26.01.2008, after hoisting the National Flag in the morning, sweets were distributed and the Flag was lowered in the evening by 6.00 p.m. She has denied the contents of the newspaper report that the flag was allowed to fly till 01.02.2008. She has further added that one Mr. Kathiresan, a part time press reporter working in Tamilmurasu Newspaper, under the guise of collecting news from the police, attempted to interfere with the investigation of criminal cases and made frequent telephone calls to her predecessor Smt. Rajamani failing which, he had threatened that news reports against the police department would be published. The 6th respondent, has further stated that as the above conduct was impermissible, he was suitably warned by her predecessor not to interfere with the investigation. For some time, the said reporter stopped coming to the police station and after the 6th respondents assumption of office as Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirupparamkundram, he has started interfering with the investigation. Being aggrieved by the warning given by the 6th respondent and in order to wreck vengeance, a false news has been published in the newspaper, against the police men of Thirupparamkundram Police Station. Based on the explanation, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is purely motivated and there is no bona fide. 6. Being aggrieved by the warning given by the 6th respondent and in order to wreck vengeance, a false news has been published in the newspaper, against the police men of Thirupparamkundram Police Station. Based on the explanation, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the writ petition is purely motivated and there is no bona fide. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the writ petition has been filed mainly on the basis of a newspaper report said to have been published on 02.02.2008 in "Dhina Thanthi" and that the affidavit does not disclose any other source of material. He further submitted that the petitioner being a practicing lawyer ought to have taken adequate measures to ascertain the truth or otherwise of such paper news before initiating a legal proceeding against a public servant and in the absence of any supporting material, the writ petition styled as “pro bono publico" litigation is liable to be dismissed. 7. Before adverting to the factual matrix, we deem it necessary to extract a few judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the question as to whether newspaper reports can simply be acted upon in public interest litigations. 8. The question of admissibility of the newspaper reports came up for consideration in Samant N. Balkrishna and another Vs. George Fernandez and other reported in 1969 3 SCC 238 at paragraph 26, the Apex Court observed that ."A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible." 9. As regards nature and admissibility of a newspaper report, the Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319 , opined that ."...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319 , opined that ."...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein." 10. In Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K. Kanta reported in 1994 (1) SCC 452, the question as to whether mere production of the copy of the newspaper be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item) contained therein came up for consideration. The Apex Court at Paragraph 48 of the judgment held that "48. Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly proved only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements, as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publication of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent." 11. The Supreme Court dealing with a "pro bono publico" litigation in B.P. Singhal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2004 (13) SCC 673 , wherein the petitioner sought for a transfer of an investigation from Tamil Nadu State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation, opined that: "the petition is lacking in material particulars. All the averments made in the petition are based, by and large, on news reports and not on personal knowledge. The petition does not state that the petitioner has taken any care to verify himself the correctness of the averments made." 12. In yet another decision in Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in 2004(3) SCC 363 dealing with a public interest litigation, challenging the propriety of the third respondent therein for being considered for appointment as a Judge, the Supreme Court while expressing its anguish found that: "the petitioner has no where stated that he has personal knowledge of the allegations made against R3. Union of India (UOI) and others reported in 2004(3) SCC 363 dealing with a public interest litigation, challenging the propriety of the third respondent therein for being considered for appointment as a Judge, the Supreme Court while expressing its anguish found that: "the petitioner has no where stated that he has personal knowledge of the allegations made against R3. He does not even aver that he made any effort to find out whether the allegations have any basis. He only refers to the representation of Ram Sarup and some other paper cuttings of news items. It is too much to attribute authenticity or creditability to any information or fact merely because, it found publication in a newspaper or journal or magazine or any other form of communication, as though it is gospel truth. It needs no reiteration that newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally acceptable evidence." 13. In matters relating to public interest litigation, the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that the Court has to be satisfied about (a)the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. Reference can be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Holicow Pictures Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others reported in 2008 (1) CTC 711 (Para 20). 14. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect. Reference can be made to the recent decision of the Apex Court in Holicow Pictures Pvt., Ltd., Vs. Prem Chandra Mishra and others reported in 2008 (1) CTC 711 (Para 20). 14. In the above legal backdrop, we would like to examine the averments made by the petitioner as to whether he has satisfied the test of furnishing legally acceptable evidence and materials, so as to attract public interest litigation, a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection. The relevant paragraphs in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are extracted hereunder: "5.2) The National Flag was not lowered till 05.00 p.m., on 01.02.2008. I personally indicated to the concerned authorities. They assured of lowering it, forthwith. But on 02.02.2008 it was reported in the newspaper "Dhina Thanthi" 5.3) Promptly, I approached the Law and Order Police Station authorities (R5) by presenting a complaint for instituting appropriate legal action against the erring Inspector of Police (R6), All Women Police Station, Thirupparamkundram. But in vain. 6. The above said act was published in the Edition dated 02.02.2008 of "Dhina Thanthi" which became my main source for presenting the complaint." 15. In the typed set of papers, the petitioner has enclosed the newspaper report said to have been published on 02.02.2008, his representation dated 18.02.2008 to the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu and Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu and other police officials to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent. Scrutiny of the representation dated 18.02.2008 and the reading of the affidavit in its entirety does not disclose that the petitioner, claiming to be a public spirited person and having faith in rule of law has ever taken any personal effort to verify the truth or otherwise of the newspaper report nor he had filed any affidavit of the maker of the report. 16. In the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court that the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 16. In the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court that the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. Considering the gravity of the allegations leveled against a member of disciplined force, of causing disrespect to our National Flag, the petitioner being a practicing lawyer, ought to have taken necessary care to verify the correctness of the averments made. As stated supra, his main source for presenting the complaint/writ petition is the publication in the Dhina Thanthi newspaper on 02.02.2008. Excepting the averments made in the affidavit, no material is placed before this Court to prove that the petitioner has personally met the authorities on 01.02.2008 to lower the Flag. Even in the representation dated 18.02.2008, the petitioner has not stated anything about his visit to the police Station on 01.02.2008. It is now well settled that a news item published in the newspaper are only hearsay and no judicial notice can be taken unless supported by further authentic evidence. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by the Supreme Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, the petitioner, without verifying the authenticity or otherwise of the news items, has chosen to resort to the extra ordinary jurisdiction. The Public Interest Litigation intended to ameliorate the grievance of the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated, should not be misused. Before maintaining a cause before the Court one should prove that there is concrete and credible basis, not withstanding the credentials claimed of the person moving the courts. 17. While considering the question as to whether the flying of National Flag is a fundamental right and Flag Code which contains only instructions of the Government of India and thus being not a law, imposing reasonable restrictions in respect thereof, is enforceable within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court in its judgment in Union of India Vs. Naveen Jindal and another reported in 2004 (2) SCC 510 held as follows: "We hold that: i) 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 being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation. ii) The fundamental right to fly the National Flag is not an absolute right but a qualified one being subject to reasonable restrictions under clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. iii) The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag. iv) Flag Code although is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 19 thereof, it would not restrictively regulate the free exercise of the right of flying the National Flag. However, the Flag Code to the extent it provides for preserving respect and dignity of the National Flag, the same deserves to be followed. v) For the purpose of interpretation of the constitutional scheme and for the purpose of maintaining a balance between the fundamental/legal rights of a citizen vis-à-vis, the regulatory measures/restrictions, both parts IV and IV-A of the Constitution of India can be taken recourse to." 18. In the words of the Supreme Court, "the National Flag indisputably stands for the whole nation, its ideals, aspirations, its hopes and achievements. It is the most solemn symbol of a country. Be it a Head of the State, King or peasant, salutes it. A piece of cloth called the National Flag stands for the whole nation, its honour and glory. When it goes up the flag mast, "the heart of a true citizen is filled with pride. National Flags are intended to project the identity of the country they represent and foster national spirit. Their distinctive designs and colours embody each nations particular character and proclaim the countrys separate existence. Thus, it is veritably common to all nations that a National Flag has a great amount of significance. National Anthem, National Flag and National Song are secular symbols of the nationhood. Their distinctive designs and colours embody each nations particular character and proclaim the countrys separate existence. Thus, it is veritably common to all nations that a National Flag has a great amount of significance. National Anthem, National Flag and National Song are secular symbols of the nationhood. They represent the supreme collective expression of commitment and loyalty to the nation as well as patriotism for the country. They are necessary adjuncts of sovereignty being symbols and actions associated therewith. The unity and integrity of India if it is to be perceived and diverse situations, the feeling of loyalty, commitment and patriotism can be judged not only by giving effect to constitutionalism but also on their secular symbols." 19. Every citizen of this great nation has the constitutional duty to pay respect to our Nation, the Constitution of India, National Flag, National Anthem and National Song and we are conscious that anybody who deliberately disrespects the same should be seriously dealt with. 20. We are constrained to hold that the pro bono public interest litigation instituted by the petitioner on the basis of the newspaper report lacks legally acceptable evidence. Incidentally, from the materials produced by the learned Special Government Pleader we also find that the matter is being looked into by the authorities. Before parting with the case, we wish to extract the directives of the Supreme Court in dealing with pro bono publico litigations filed on the basis of unconfirmed news reports. "It is also noticed petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts." 21. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.