A petition to make national anthem mandatory in courts rejected by Supreme Court
After its widely-debated order to play the national anthem in cinemas with the doors shut, the Supreme Court today rejected a petition to make it a must in courts. "We are not inclined," the judges said.
On Wednesday, the court said citizens "are duty-bound to show respect to the national anthem which is the symbol of the constitutional patriotism" and ordered that the anthem be played before movie screenings.
"It is a great order. The court can modify it to make it mandatory in all courts including the Supreme Court," said petitioner Ashwin Upadhyaya, a lawyer.
But the court rejected his request, saying: "We don't need any adjectives. How can we allow you to intervene in this case? Let us see when the case comes up for hearing." The court also said its order on the anthem should not be "overstretched".
The court's ruling on the anthem in cinemas has been criticized as "judicial overreach" by Soli Sorabjee, who was the government's top lawyer in 1998-2004.
"The intent is good but there must be a practical way of doing it," said the former Attorney General, adding that the court must know its "lakshman rekha."
Patriotism, he said, cannot be enforced by a court order. "It should be spontaneous and individual should do it on his own," asserted the eminent jurist.
A part of the order that many have called controversial is that the doors should be shut while the anthem is playing. Experts and others on social media have questioned whether the order overlooks the possibility of emergencies like a fire in the theatre.
The government has promised to implement the rule in 10 days.
The anthem was played after the movie in cinema halls in the 1960s, but the practice faded away over the years, as multiplexes came up. In many states like Maharashtra, single theatres play the anthem.