Why in news?
The Supreme Court has modified its earlier order regarding mandatory playing of national anthem in cinema halls.
What is the court's observation?
- In its earlier order, the court ordered all cinema halls to play the anthem before screening a film.
- The Supreme Court has modified this and has now made it optional for cinema halls to play the national anthem before every show.
- The court observed that playing of the anthem was directive, but showing respect was mandatory.
- Accordingly, if the anthem is played, patrons in the hall are bound to show respect by standing up.
- The court clarified that the exception granted to disabled persons from standing up during the anthem shall remain in force on all occasions.
What lies before the Centre?
- The current modification will be in place till the Union government takes a final decision.
- This will be based on the recommendations of a 12-member high-profile inter-ministerial committee.
- The committee was set up, following the court's earlier order.
- It will specify the occasions, circumstances and events for the solemn rendering of the anthem.
- The ministerial panel will also examine whether any amendments are necessary to the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act of 1971.
- The 1971 Act deals with national anthem, related mandates and punishments thereof for any violations.
- But the petitioner calls for the SC to intervene and interpret the 1971 Act in the light of Article 51A on fundamental duties.
- The Supreme Court disposed of the petitions, and directed to make the representations before the inter-ministerial committee.
Why is the modification so significant?
- Making it mandatory to play national anthem by a judicial rule in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect seemed as a judicial over-reach.
- The court’s earlier order also had some unintended consequences like reports of vigilantism, with people criticized or beaten up for not standing up.
- The need for visibly demonstrating one's patriotism was felt as a case of moral policing.
- The rationale behind singling out cinema houses leaving out other types of meeting and assemblies was also questionable.
- Above all, the mandatory demonstration of patriotism is not a healthy signature of a mature democracy like that India.
- The court's modification to the order has thus removed the coercive element.
- Even if rules are needed for the purpose, it is for the Parliament to prescribe them by law.
Source: The Hindu
