This is not an Article on the Legality of the Order/ Judicial or Legal Perspective. This is an opinion piece. Read more about the Legal Perspective in This Article, this one or other articles mentioned below.
The Supreme Court in an recent Order (which is thankfully interim, and hopefully will be revised) has issued Guidelines to " [show] requisite and necessary respect when the National Anthem is sung or played." Under it is Guidelines that make sense ( To avoid Commercial Exploitation or Use of the Anthem) But how does it affect the Copyrights of Musicians performing the National Anthem Affected?
Then the Order pushes on to the part we're all talking about : The National Anthem in Cinema Halls. In the final concluding comments, the Justices state
: " 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 instill the feeling within one, a sense committed patriotism and nationalism."
Of course, it makes sense for the Supreme Court to foster and instill patriotism and nationalism in the citizens of the country. But singing the National Anthem before a Feature Film in a Cinema Hall will instill it?
I mean, c'mon!
What if we're going to sing the anthem before what general society considers to be an immoral sleazy picture like "The Dirty Picture"? Is that respectful to the national anthem? The basis of the whole order?
The order then quotes the famed Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, the uneforcable "Fundamental Duties" placed on citizens.
Article 51(a) of course, places an obligation to respect the Constitution and respect the National Flag and National Anthem - and according to the SC order, we'll have to respect it and display our patriotism before we watch well, whatever.
An Interesting thing about this whole plea is the history behind the Petitioner and Judge:
Some years ago, while watching the movie Kabhi Kush Kabhi Gham, the petitioner, stood up for a part where the National Anthem was played, in patriotic vigor. People asked him to sit down cause he was obstructing their view - and in his own words, "I was hurt". He went against the scene in the Bhopal HC(as any patriot would), where the then High Court Judge Dipak Misra passed an order cutting the the scene, which the SC later stayed. Revenge is sweet, as J. Misra has clearly crafted it fit into the scenario.
As I noted on facebook, the SC has continuously overreached and made Judicial Legislation for quite some time. The Court Generally exercises the power when there is a vacuum of legislation, and the Legislature to replace the Courts order with comprehensive statue, most famously in the case of the Vishaka Guidelines where the court laid down procedural guidelines for Sexual Harassment cases ( which the Legislature finally made into law in 2013 by passing the The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) Read more about it here.
Here, the SC has added to the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971, which among other things, penalizes the disrespect shown to National Anthem. Did the Constituent Assembly intend to give the SC under Article 141(under which the SC can declare Law) the ability to add provisions as it sees fit? Which makes absolutely no difference in the problems or issues faced by Citizens?
Curious times indeed.
This order is a brazen display of the extent of the powers that the Supreme Court has appropriated for itself. With one swish of a pen, two judges have made every film screening into a forced display of patriotism for its citizens.
References:
"National Anthem Order doesn't seem practical" by Free Press Journal (Editorial)
"SC Anthem Order a case of overreach" by Deccan Chronicle
"Supreme Court's National Anthem Order mocks Judicial Process, Constitution" by Alok Prasanna Kumar , FirstPost
"Playing of National Anthem and Laws" by Sruthi Radhakrishnan, The Hindu
"A Legal Overdose of patriotism" by Apar Gupta, Live Mint
"SC's National Anthem order: What we need is Culture of Patriotism" by Sandipan Sharma, FirstPost
Also, the report that said SC rejected a plea to make National Anthems mandatory at courts ( as reported here by Scroll) was actually rejected on technical grounds, as reported by LiveLaw here.
Of course, it makes sense for the Supreme Court to foster and instill patriotism and nationalism in the citizens of the country. But singing the National Anthem before a Feature Film in a Cinema Hall will instill it?
I mean, c'mon!
What if we're going to sing the anthem before what general society considers to be an immoral sleazy picture like "The Dirty Picture"? Is that respectful to the national anthem? The basis of the whole order?
The order then quotes the famed Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, the uneforcable "Fundamental Duties" placed on citizens.
Article 51(a) of course, places an obligation to respect the Constitution and respect the National Flag and National Anthem - and according to the SC order, we'll have to respect it and display our patriotism before we watch well, whatever.
An Interesting thing about this whole plea is the history behind the Petitioner and Judge:
Some years ago, while watching the movie Kabhi Kush Kabhi Gham, the petitioner, stood up for a part where the National Anthem was played, in patriotic vigor. People asked him to sit down cause he was obstructing their view - and in his own words, "I was hurt". He went against the scene in the Bhopal HC(as any patriot would), where the then High Court Judge Dipak Misra passed an order cutting the the scene, which the SC later stayed. Revenge is sweet, as J. Misra has clearly crafted it fit into the scenario.
As I noted on facebook, the SC has continuously overreached and made Judicial Legislation for quite some time. The Court Generally exercises the power when there is a vacuum of legislation, and the Legislature to replace the Courts order with comprehensive statue, most famously in the case of the Vishaka Guidelines where the court laid down procedural guidelines for Sexual Harassment cases ( which the Legislature finally made into law in 2013 by passing the The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) Read more about it here.
Here, the SC has added to the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971, which among other things, penalizes the disrespect shown to National Anthem. Did the Constituent Assembly intend to give the SC under Article 141(under which the SC can declare Law) the ability to add provisions as it sees fit? Which makes absolutely no difference in the problems or issues faced by Citizens?
Curious times indeed.
This order is a brazen display of the extent of the powers that the Supreme Court has appropriated for itself. With one swish of a pen, two judges have made every film screening into a forced display of patriotism for its citizens.
References:
"National Anthem Order doesn't seem practical" by Free Press Journal (Editorial)
"SC Anthem Order a case of overreach" by Deccan Chronicle
"Supreme Court's National Anthem Order mocks Judicial Process, Constitution" by Alok Prasanna Kumar , FirstPost
"Playing of National Anthem and Laws" by Sruthi Radhakrishnan, The Hindu
"A Legal Overdose of patriotism" by Apar Gupta, Live Mint
"SC's National Anthem order: What we need is Culture of Patriotism" by Sandipan Sharma, FirstPost
Also, the report that said SC rejected a plea to make National Anthems mandatory at courts ( as reported here by Scroll) was actually rejected on technical grounds, as reported by LiveLaw here.
Nice Article Ananth!
ReplyDeleteThank you, DT!
ReplyDelete