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

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]

India News

Telegram CEO Pavel Durov criticises India restriction, says leak networks shifted to other apps

Telegram founder Pavel Durov has responded to India’s temporary restriction on the platform ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, arguing that the move affected ordinary users without stopping alleged leak networks.

Published

on

Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has criticised India’s decision to temporarily restrict access to the messaging platform, arguing that the move failed to curb alleged exam leak operations and instead affected millions of legitimate users.

The restriction was imposed ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination as authorities sought to prevent the spread of leaked exam-related material and disrupt networks allegedly involved in malpractice.

In a public response, Durov said the action had inconvenienced a large number of users across India while those responsible for sharing leaked content had simply migrated to alternative platforms.

According to Durov, restricting access to Telegram did not eliminate the problem authorities were trying to address. He claimed that groups involved in distributing exam-related leaks quickly shifted their activities elsewhere, raising questions about the effectiveness of platform-specific restrictions.

The temporary curbs were announced by the government in the lead-up to the NEET-UG re-test scheduled for June 21. Officials said the move was aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the examination process following concerns about the circulation of leaked material online.

The restriction is currently expected to remain in place until June 22.

Durov also stressed that millions of Indian users rely on Telegram for communication, education, business activities and community engagement. He argued that measures targeting an entire platform can have wider consequences for users who have no connection to alleged wrongdoing.

The government’s action came amid broader efforts to prevent cheating and malpractice in competitive examinations. Authorities have been closely monitoring digital platforms and messaging services after reports that exam-related content was being circulated through online channels.

The debate has sparked discussions about how governments and technology platforms should balance examination security with access to digital communication services. While officials maintain that strong measures are necessary to protect the fairness of high-stakes examinations, critics argue that restrictions on entire platforms may not effectively stop determined offenders.

For now, Telegram remains at the centre of the discussion as authorities continue efforts to ensure a fair and secure conduct of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination.

Continue Reading

India News

Telegram restricted ahead of NEET-UG re-exam, NTA backs move to curb exam fraud

NTA has welcomed the Centre’s decision to temporarily restrict Telegram ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, citing the need to prevent fraud and misinformation.

Published

on

NEET

The Centre has imposed temporary restrictions on messaging platform Telegram ahead of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination, with the National Testing Agency (NTA) welcoming the decision as part of efforts to prevent exam-related fraud and misinformation.

The temporary curbs will remain in place until June 22, a day after the NEET-UG re-exam scheduled for June 21. Authorities said the action was taken following concerns that the platform was being misused by cheating networks and individuals circulating misleading claims related to the examination.

NTA says move aimed at protecting exam integrity

According to the NTA, the restrictions are intended to safeguard candidates from fraudulent activities and false information that could affect the fairness of the examination process. The agency stated that maintaining the integrity of the re-examination remains a priority as lakhs of students prepare to appear for the test.

The NEET-UG re-exam is being conducted after the original examination was cancelled amid allegations of question paper leaks and irregularities. Since then, authorities have been monitoring online platforms for suspicious activity and misleading content targeting candidates.

Restrictions linked to concerns over fake paper leak claims

In recent weeks, several reports surfaced about Telegram channels allegedly offering access to leaked examination papers. The NTA had repeatedly advised students not to trust such claims and referred suspicious links and posts for verification by cybercrime authorities. No official confirmation of any genuine leaked re-exam paper had been issued.

Authorities believe the temporary restrictions will help limit the spread of fake content and reduce opportunities for organised exam fraud in the days leading up to the re-test.

Wider efforts to secure the re-examination

The government and examination authorities have introduced several measures ahead of the re-exam, including monitoring social media platforms and creating channels for reporting suspicious claims related to NEET-UG 2026. The NTA has also urged candidates to rely only on official communications for updates regarding the examination.

With the re-examination approaching, officials say the latest action is part of a broader effort to ensure a fair and transparent process for all candidates.

Continue Reading

India News

Abhishek Banerjee says will not bow to BJP after nearly 11 hours of ED questioning

After spending nearly 11 hours before the Enforcement Directorate, TMC leader Abhishek Banerjee said he would not bow to the BJP and accused the ruling party of using investigative agencies for political purposes.

Published

on

Abhishek Banerjee

Trinamool Congress leader and Diamond Harbour MP Abhishek Banerjee on Tuesday said he would not bow to the BJP after spending nearly 11 hours being questioned by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with an ongoing investigation.

Speaking after the questioning, Banerjee alleged that central agencies were being used to target opposition leaders and asserted that he would continue his political fight despite what he described as sustained pressure.

The TMC leader has repeatedly maintained that investigations involving him are politically motivated, a charge he has made on several previous occasions while appearing before central agencies.

His appearance before the ED comes amid a period of heightened political activity and multiple investigations involving leaders in West Bengal. Recent days have also seen Banerjee face summons and questioning in separate matters by state investigative agencies.

After leaving the ED office, Banerjee reiterated that he would not be intimidated and said he remained committed to his political responsibilities. He also accused the BJP of attempting to weaken opposition parties through investigative action, an allegation that the BJP has rejected in the past.

The Enforcement Directorate has not publicly commented on Banerjee’s remarks. The investigation related to the questioning remains ongoing.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com