The National Anthem which used to be played in the cinema halls of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh had the idea of Unity along with respect for the Nation which is vastly diversified in caste, religion and region and therefore as it was useful for these states it was thought that the same would be useful for others states as well but the same was adding disrespect because one of the judges Justice Chandrachud said that he had witnessed people leaving the cinema halls when the National Anthem was played after the show. Taking on the submissions from Attorney General K. K. Venugopal wherein he stated that playing the National Anthem would be a “unifying force” so that “when people come out of the theatre they will believe that we are all Indians”. And further added that “Its purpose is the loyalty of the population, to neutralise divisiveness, foster unity in diversity. It is the duty of every citizen under Article 51-A (a) to abide by the Constitution, respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.”
Justice Chandrachud called out the Government through the Attorney General to take their call by saying “Are we [Supreme Court] supposed to enforce all this? As the government, you have the power. You take the call. Why should we take your burden?” Further he also added, “If the court is supposed to enforce respect for the National Anthem on citizens, it should also enforce the other fundamental duties in Article 51A? You know what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, right?” This was an outcome reply to the duties of every citizen refereed by Attorney General K. K. Venugopal when he said that, “Its purpose is the loyalty of the population, to neutralise divisiveness, foster unity in diversity. It is the duty of every citizen under Article 51-A (a) to abide by the Constitution, respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.”
In 2016 a writ petition was filed by Shyam Narayan Chouksey which referred to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 1971, had claimed that the “National Anthem is sung in various circumstances which are not permissible and can never be countenanced in law”. The Supreme Court comprised of three judge bench had given a decision on 30th of November 2016 mandating people to “Stand up, when the National Anthem is featured in cinema halls before every show” On Monday, Justice Chandrachud lashed out the logic behind that order and asked the Government to take a call in this matter. The three judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra gave the suggestion of changing the language of the November 2016 order making the effect of playing the Anthem optional, and the same had been delivered in the context of hearing a petition filed by Kodungalloor Film Society in Kerala to recall the November order.
The conclusion of the hour long discussion summarized to Attorney General K. K. Venugopal saying that Government would take a call followed by the suggestion in the change of language of the November 30th order. The case was then posted for hearing on 9th of January, 2018. In the manner of an opinion the words of Justice Chandrachud stand tall as because the citizens are not required to show patriotism or prove their love for their country by standing when the National Anthem is played in cinema halls. Some people find it not worthy of their time and that is why they choose the opposite which leads to bringing down the morality of others and they ultimately start to copy. When in a public place where they have gathered for entertainment they are not required to prove their patriotism.
BY: ALISHA BAWA
