English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

You don’t have to stand up at a cinema hall to prove patriotism, says Justice Chandrachud

Published

9 years ago

on

national anthem

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider a plea to modify its order that made the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls mandatory, even as the Centre opposed the move.

The apex court asked the Centre to take a call on the issue and consider amending the national flag code to regulate the matter, and frame rules by January 9.

The hearing of the case saw Justice Chandrachud making some interesting remarks on the issue after Attorney General for India KK Venugopal argued for playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls on the ground that it fosters national unity in a vast and diverse country like India, and is supported by Article 51A of the Constitution.

A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, now the Chief Justice of India, had on November 30, 2016 passed an order making it mandatory to play the National Anthem before every show in cinema halls and for cinema-goers to stand up while it was played. Justice Misra had reasoned that the practice would “instil a feeling of committed patriotism and nationalism”. The Bench had described the playing of the anthem in cinema halls as an opportunity for the public to express their “love for the motherland”.

On Monday, Justice DY Chandrachud questioned the rationale, saying there is no need for an Indian to “wear his patriotism on his sleeve”. Justice Chandrachud was part of a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra hearing a petition filed by Kodungalloor Film Society in Kerala to recall the November order.

“Next thing will be that people should not wear T-shirts and shorts to movies because it will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem… where do we stop this moral policing?” Justice Chandrachud said.

Media reports said that Justice Chandrachud referred to the Flag Code to observe that “there is no mandate that people should stand up when the National Anthem is sung in a cinema hall. This is obviously because a cinema hall is a place for entertainment… People go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment. Why should we make choices for them? Why should we assume that if someone doesn’t stand up for anthem in the cinema hall, he is not patriotic?”

“You don’t have to stand up at a cinema hall to be perceived as patriotic,” Justice Chandrachud said.

At one point, Justice AM Khanwilkar reacted to lawyers’ submissions that the National Anthem is played in cinema halls in States like Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh, saying if it is good for Maharashtra, it may be good for other States.

Justice Chandrachud, however, took a leaf from his childhood, remarking that he had witnessed people leaving the cinema hall when the Anthem is played after the show. “Maybe that was why it was stopped… because of the disrespect,” Justice Chandrachud said.

The judge was responding to submissions by Attorney General KK Venugopal, for the Centre, in support of the November 30, 2016 order. Venugopal submitted that playing the National Anthem in cinema halls and standing up as a mark of respect for it fosters a sense of unity in a country diverse in caste, religion and regions. The AG submitted that playing the Anthem would be a “unifying force” so that “when people come out of the theatre they will believe that we are all Indians”.

“Its purpose is the loyalty of the population, to neutralise divisiveness, foster unity in diversity. It is the duty of every citizen under Article 51-A (a) to abide by the Constitution, respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem,” Venugopal submitted.

Justice Chandrachud disagreed. He said Article 51A is very broad and also makes it the fundamental duty of citizens to “develop scientific temper, humanism, spirit of inquiry”, etc. “Are we [Supreme Court] supposed to enforce all this? As the government, you have the power. You take the call. Why should we take your burden?” said Justice Chandrachud.

“If the court is supposed to enforce respect for the National Anthem on citizens, it should also enforce the other fundamental duties in Article 51A? You know what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, right?” Justice Chandrachud asked Venugopal.

When one of the lawyers said some missionary schools refused to play the National Anthem, Justice Chandrachud, who authored the majority verdict declaring privacy as a fundamental right, retorted: “I studied in a missionary school. We sang both the National Anthem and ‘Our Father’. For us both were equally important.”

Justice Chandrachud said cultural and social values are imbibed from parents and teachers and not what courts enforce through its orders.

The judge indicated that it was for the government to take the call on whether it wants the Flag Code to be amended to make it mandatory for cinema halls to play the anthem.

Towards the end of the hour-long hearing, Chief Justice Misra suggested a change in the language of the November 2016 order, which had the effect of making the playing the anthem optional, The Hindu reported.

However, Venugopal said the government would take a call. Finally, the court left it to the discretion of the government to bring out any notification, if necessary, to take a call to make or not make the playing of the National Anthem mandatory in cinema halls, uninfluenced by the Court’s earlier order.

The case was posted for hearing on January 9, 2018.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

LPU students protest over reported rape allegation, police call it rumour

Students at Lovely Professional University protested over a reported rape allegation involving a worker, with police describing the claim as a rumour.

Published

18 hours ago

on

September 27, 2026

By

Students of Lovely Professional University (LPU) in Punjab staged a protest after an allegation involving the reported rape of a student by a worker at the university surfaced.

The protest led to disruption around the university, with students taking to the streets and blocking the Jalandhar-Phagwara National Highway, according to the report.

The allegation triggered anger among students, who demanded action over the reported incident.

Police describe rape claim as rumour

Police, however, described the rape claim as a rumour, indicating that the allegation had not been established as a confirmed incident.

The distinction is important because the reported sexual assault allegation should not be treated as a confirmed rape unless investigators or other authoritative sources establish that fact.

The protests nevertheless continued as students sought clarity and action over the issue.

Protest disrupts traffic

The student demonstration also affected traffic on the Jalandhar-Phagwara National Highway. The protest brought attention to the allegations and the concerns being raised by students at the university.

With police calling the claim a rumour, further verification and investigation would be necessary to establish what actually happened.

Continue Reading

India News

INDIA bloc likely to meet on September 30 over Gyanesh Kumar row

INDIA bloc parties are likely to meet in New Delhi on September 30 amid growing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Rahul-Gandhi

Opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc are set to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss concerns surrounding the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a proposed removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proposed meeting comes amid growing coordination among opposition parties over the functioning of the poll panel and demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The parties are also discussing a possible joint response to the developments.

Why is the INDIA bloc meeting being planned?

The INDIA bloc meeting on September 30 comes amid reports of objections within the Election Commission over certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise. 

According to the report, Opposition leaders have been discussing a coordinated response to their concerns over the Election Commission and the electoral-roll revision process. 

The issue is also expected to be discussed at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, a day before the proposed INDIA bloc meeting.

Gyanesh Kumar removal demand in focus

The demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major point of contention between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and an immediate halt to the SIR exercise. Congress has also intensified its criticism of the CEC.

Opposition parties are also working on a fresh removal motion against Gyanesh Kumar. The September 30 meeting is expected to finalise the strategy for the motion, including the collection of signatures. According to the report, this would be the Opposition’s third such attempt. 

What is the SIR controversy?

The political dispute is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR.

The controversy intensified following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

The Election Commission has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures, while stating that the final decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously. 

TMC and Left parties coordinate over the issue

The developments have also brought the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) together on the Election Commission issue, despite their political differences in West Bengal.

CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby proposed an immediate meeting to discuss a joint strategy. According to the report, Mamata Banerjee spoke with M A Baby and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, after which the leaders settled on September 30 for the meeting. 

What could be discussed at the September 30 meeting?

The proposed meeting is expected to focus on:

  • Concerns surrounding the Election Commission
  • The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
  • Opposition demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar
  • A possible fresh removal notice against the CEC
  • A coordinated response by INDIA bloc parties

The exact agenda and participation will depend on the discussions among the opposition parties before the proposed meeting.

Continue Reading

India News

“Will die but won’t give up”: Sahil Wakode’s parents urge IIT students to continue fight 

Sahil Wakode’s parents have appealed to IIT Bombay students to continue their fight for justice amid the ongoing investigation into their son’s death.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

Sahil Wakode

The parents of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode have appealed to students to continue raising their voices and fighting for justice following their son’s death.

Sahil Wakode, a second-year student at IIT Bombay, died in his hostel room on September 18. His death has led to student protests and an ongoing investigation by the Mumbai Crime Branch.

What Sahil Wakode’s parents have alleged

Sahil’s parents have alleged that their son faced caste-based discrimination and harassment at IIT Bombay before his death. They have sought action against those they hold responsible and have demanded a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

The family has also called for a CBI inquiry and has sought the arrest of officials named in the case. These remain allegations and are part of the ongoing investigation.

The Mumbai Crime Branch took over the probe after an FIR was registered following the complaint by Sahil’s parents.

IIT Bombay’s position

IIT Bombay has said that Sahil was allegedly caught using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and had uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT to seek answers.

The institute has maintained that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him. It said the matter had been discussed with him by the instructor and the Head of the Department, who counselled him and assured him that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career.

The circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death are being investigated by the appropriate authorities.

Investigation continues

The case remains under investigation, with the Mumbai Crime Branch examining the circumstances surrounding Sahil’s death and the allegations made by his family.

His parents have continued to demand justice and action against those they believe were responsible, while the investigation is expected to establish the facts surrounding the case.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com