Dukhan, son of the late Mohammad Salamat, was taken into custody after police registered an FIR and began an inquiry into the alleged alteration of the flag. The case centres on claims that the Ashoka Chakra at the centre of the tricolour was replaced with a crescent and star, an act investigators are treating as a possible violation of legal protections governing the dignity and correct display of the flag.
The incident was reported from the Murliganj police station area, where the flag was allegedly displayed near a shop. Police moved after the matter came to their notice, with local officers recording details of the display, identifying the accused and initiating formal action. The altered flag was treated as material evidence in the case, while statements from people in the vicinity are expected to form part of the investigation.
The FIR places the matter within the framework of offences relating to national honour, where intentional defacement, disfigurement, mutilation or disrespect of the flag can attract criminal liability. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, extends across the country and lays down penalties for acts that insult the national flag or the Constitution. The Flag Code of India, 2002, also sets out conventions and instructions on the proper use and display of the tricolour.
Police action in Madhepura reflects a wider pattern of swift legal response in cases involving alleged misuse of national symbols, particularly when the display occurs in public view. The national flag’s design is protected not merely as a decorative emblem but as a constitutional symbol carrying civic and political meaning. Any alteration of its central features, including the navy-blue Ashoka Chakra, is therefore treated as a sensitive matter by law-enforcement agencies.
The Ashoka Chakra, placed in the white band of the flag, has 24 spokes and was adopted as part of the national flag on July 22, 1947. Its replacement with another symbol is not permitted under the flag code and can be construed as defacement or disfigurement when done deliberately. Investigators will have to establish the circumstances in which the altered flag was prepared, displayed and kept near the shop.
The case has also drawn attention to the threshold for prosecution in flag-related offences. Courts have generally examined whether an act was deliberate and whether it amounted to disrespect within the meaning of the law. This means the investigation is likely to consider intent, knowledge, the location of the display, visibility to the public and any explanation offered by the accused.
Dukhan’s arrest does not amount to a finding of guilt. The allegations will be tested through the criminal process, beginning with police investigation and, if charges are pursued, proceedings before a competent court. The accused will have the right to legal representation and to challenge the allegations, while police will be required to support the FIR with evidence that meets the standard required for prosecution.
Madhepura, located in the Kosi region, has several semi-urban market centres where shops, public spaces and religious or community displays often overlap. Such locations can become flashpoints when symbols associated with national identity are perceived to have been altered or misused. Police in such cases are typically expected to act quickly to prevent local tension while also ensuring that the legal process is not driven by speculation or rumour.
Officials are expected to verify whether the flag was intentionally modified, who arranged or displayed it, and whether anyone else had a role in placing it near the shop. Forensic or photographic evidence may also be examined if police seek to establish the condition of the flag at the time it was found. The recovery memo, witness statements and seizure record will be central to the case file.
