Verdict on playing national anthem in theatres misused: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday conceded that its order to play the national anthem before every movie in cinema halls and for the audience to stand up and show their respect had been misused to call people “anti-national” and left it to the government to frame rules in this regard.
The court wondered why citizens had to prove their patriotism this way and asked the Central government to bring in rules to this effect if it wanted.

A two-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra made it mandatory last year for movie halls to play the national anthem. A Keralabased cine association, through senior advocate CU Singh, opposed the order, contending that the court could not step in when the government already had a statutory regime governing the playing of the national anthem.

When a three-judge bench led by the CJI began deliberating the issue on Monday, the top court seemed to have had a change of heart. The court did not vacate its earlier interim order, which was derided as pop-nationalism, but set the tone for diluting its rigour when it left the issue to be dealt with by the executive.

Justice DY Chandrachud, sitting alongside Justices Misra and AM Khanwilkar, indicated as much when he spoke of the order being used to call people anti-national.

“People go out for a movie for entertainment. Sometimes, they go in their shorts. Next, we may have to say they can’t wear shorts. Where do you draw the line at moral policing?” he wondered.

Earlier, the government, through Attorney General KK Venugopal, opposed any attempt to recall the order, saying it helped foster the spirit of unity in a diverse nation and kept “fissiparous tendencies” based on religion, caste and region at bay. Justice Chandrachud immediately lobbed the issue back to the government.

“What stops you from amending the laws if you are so eager? Why haven’t you done it? Who do you have to throw the burden on the court? People go to movie theatres to have undiluted entertainment. Why should we decide what they should do there?” he asked.

“Why should you presume that not singing the national anthem in a theatre makes a person anti-national?” Justice Chandrachud asked, noting that patriotic values are instilled by a society’s democratic values and not by court orders and mandates.

CJI Misra conceded the order may be bordering on encroaching upon the executive, legislative domain, but dispelled the notion that it was intended to make people “wear their patriotism on their sleeves all the time.”

The CJI hinted that it may correct the order to make it optional rather than compulsory. Eventually though, the CJI left it to the government to take a call on whether to revise laws and rules to make singing of the national anthem mandatory in schools, colleges and other public institutions.