Skip to main content

SC makes national anthem mandatory in cinema halls



“Doors must be closed while it is played and all should stand up”


The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered cinema halls to mandatorily play the national anthem before every screening even as all those present have to “stand up to show respect.” The practice, according to the court, will “instil a feeling of committed patriotism and nationalism.”


Cinemas should also display the national flag on screen when the anthem is played, a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy directed. The playing of the anthem, the Bench said, is to be seen as an opportunity for the public to express their “love for the motherland.”


After lunch break, the Bench added one other condition in its order. That is, all doors in a cinema hall should remain closed to prevent any kind of disturbance when the anthem is played.






“It is time people feel this is my country. This is my motherland... You are an Indian first. In other countries, you respect their restrictions. In India, you do not want any restrictions?” Justice Misra said in court.


The order came on a writ petition by Shyam Narayan Chouksey in October. The petition, which referred to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act of 1971, claimed that the “national anthem is sung in various circumstances which are not permissible and can never be countenanced in law.”


It also referred to Article 51 (A) of the Indian Constitution to contend that it was the duty of every person to show respect when the anthem was played. However, the petition had not asked the court to direct the anthem to be played in movie halls. Instead, it had focused on the commercial exploitation of the anthem.


When the hearing began, Justice Misra, along with Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi, recalled a time, years ago, when the anthem was played in schools and before film shows in theatres as the flag fluttered on the screen. They then mutually agreed that respect was lacking.


The five-page written order, meant to be an interim measure on Mr. Chouksey’s petition, however did not elaborate why movie halls were particularly chosen as venues to instill nationalism.


Speaking for the Bench, Justice Misra observed in the order that “a time has come, the citizens of the country must realise that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to the national anthem, which is a symbol of the constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality”. The Bench said there was no space for the “perception of individual rights” in this issue.


The court banned the commercial exploitation of the national anthem and ordered there should not be dramatisation of the anthem or its inclusion as part of any “variety show”. The court ordered that the anthem or part of it should not be printed or displayed in places “disgraceful” to its status. It also banned the display, recitation or use of the abridged version of the anthem.


The Bench said the protocol of showing respect to the anthem and flag was rooted in “our national identity, national integrity and constitutional patriotism.”


It said the order should come into effect in 10 days.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i