intentionally prevents the singing of the Jana Gana Mana or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing
INDIAN POLITY CURRENT AFFAIRS 2017 COMPULSORY NATIONAL ANTHEM AT CINEMA HALLS EXISTING LAWS AND JUDGEMENTS ON NATIONAL ANTHEM Article 51(A): “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India — (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect the ideals of the national flag and the national anthem”. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: “Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Jana Gana Mana or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” Bijoe Immanuel vs State of Kerala (1986): Supreme Court had observed, “There is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not join the singing.” SUPREME COURT RULING: In Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India case (2016); Supreme Court, Made it mandatory for cinemas to play the national anthem before every screening and for everyone in the audience to stand up and show their respect. Made it compulsory for the national flag to be displayed on the screen and the doors of the cinema to be closed while the anthem is being played. Banned commercial exploitation of the national anthem. Ruled that the abridged version of the national anthem made by anyone for whatever reason shall not be played or displayed. The ruling is aimed at instilling a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism. Maharashtra and Karnataka had adopted such a rule over a decade ago. CRITICAL ANALYSIS • Patriotism as a feeling can never be imposed; instead it has to come from within. • The appropriateness of playing national anthem in cinema halls and theatres (areas of entertainment) has been questioned. Making the national anthem mandatory in schools would have helped better in instilling the sense of patriotism. • In an earlier ruling in 1986, the Apex court itself had said that no provision of law obliges anyone to sing the national anthem and not singing it does not amount to showing disrespect. • By directing the way to express patriotism, the ruling has been criticised as going against freedom of expression guaranteed to the individuals. • In the absence of a proper implementation mechanism, the rule could lead to the emergence of vigilantism NEO IAS 0484-3190310, 9446331522, 9446334122 www.neoias.com | www.youtube.com/neoias |
www.facebook.com/neoias
|
Page 1 www.twitter.com/neoias
•
The ruling has been criticised as a case of judicial over reach.
CONCLUSION: Patriotism as a feeling can never be imposed; instead it needs to come from within. Initiatives to instill patriotism is more importantly, needed in educational institutions (from where it can be spread to the society). Supreme Court should reconsider its ruling and bring the needed changes so that both, freedom of expression and patriotism are ensured in the society.
