Supreme Court realises people go to cinema halls for entertainment


Supreme Court on Monday said that if a person did not stand up for national anthem, then he was not “less patriotic” even though it was the top court that had made the playing of national anthem in cinema halls mandatory last year.

Supreme Court

But the apex court’s bench, which had Chief Justice Deepak Misra in it, asked the Centre to consider amending the rules for regulating playing of the national anthem in the theatres.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra said the next time, “the government will want people to stop wearing T-shirts and shorts to cinemas saying this would disrespect the national anthem.” It was Justice Misra, who had passed the order making it mandatory for national anthem to be played inside cinema halls last year.

The decision, widely condemned by civil society members, had led to physical torture of several disable people, who simply could not stand up for the national anthem.

Thesaid it will not allow the government to “shoot from its shoulder” and asked it to take a call either way on the issue of regulating the playing the anthem.

The bench also indicated that it may modify its order of 1 December, 2016, by which the playing of the anthem was made mandatory in the movie halls before the screening of a film, and it may replace the word “shall” with “may”.

“People go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment. Society needs entertainment. We cannot allow you (Centre) to shoot from our shoulders. People do not need to stand up in cinema halls to prove their patriotism,” the bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.

“Desireability is one thing but making it mandatory is another. Citizens cannot be forced to carry patriotism on their sleeves and courts cannot inculcate patriotism among people through its order,” the bench said.

The court’s strong remarks came during the hearing on a PIL filed last year by one Shyam Narayan Chouksey seeking directions that the national anthem should be played in all the cinema halls before a film begins.

In contrast to these remarks, a bench headed by Justice Misra had ordered the theatres across the country on December 1 last year to “mandatorily” play the national anthem before a movie and the audience must stand and show respect, in a bid to “instil committed patriotism and nationalism”.

During today’s hearing on the PIL, Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said India was a diverse country and the national anthem needed to be played in the cinema halls to bring in uniformity.

He said it should be left open to the government to take a call on its own discretion on whether the anthem should be played in theatres and whether people should stand up for it.

“What is stopping you from amending the Flag Code? You can amend it and say where to play national anthem and where it can’t be done. Nowadays, anthem is played during matches, tournaments and even Olympics where half of the crowd does not understand its meaning,” Justice Chandrachud was quoted by PTI.

The bench said “You (Centre) take a call. Government should not show any reservation to the amendment as the court would not allow it to shoot from its shoulders”.

The court then asked the Centre to consider taking a call by January 9, the next date of hearing, on amending the national flag code for regulating the playing of national anthem in cinema halls across the country.

It said the Centre has to take a call uninfluenced by its earlier order on the playing of the national anthem in the theatres.

The apex court had in its December last year’s order said that “love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag”.

It had also barred printing of the anthem or a part of it on any object and displaying it in such a manner at places which may be “disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect”.

Passing a slew of directions, the court had said that fundamental duties in the Constitution “do not allow any different notion or the perception of individual rights that have individual thought, have no space. The idea is constitutionally impermissible”.

“The directions are issued, for love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National Anthem as well as to the National Flag. That apart, it would instil the feeling within one a sense committed patriotism and nationalism,” it had then said.

It had also said proper norms and protocol should be fixed regarding its playing and singing at official functions and programmes where those holding constitutional office are present.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here