Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 681 views

    The National Anthem Case, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Sudhanshu Jatav
    1) The Supreme Court decision requiring national anthem to be played in theaters before movies is out of place and undermines the separation of powers. 2) As a judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret laws, not create new ones. Making laws is the role of the legislative body. 3) Previously in 1986, the Supreme Court had ruled that forcing someone to sing the national anthem violates fundamental rights to free expression. However, the new ruling contradicts this and lacks proper legal basis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The National Anthem Case, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Sudhanshu Jatav
    681 views3 pages
    1) The Supreme Court decision requiring national anthem to be played in theaters before movies is out of place and undermines the separation of powers. 2) As a judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret laws, not create new ones. Making laws is the role of the legislative body. 3) Previously in 1986, the Supreme Court had ruled that forcing someone to sing the national anthem violates fundamental rights to free expression. However, the new ruling contradicts this and lacks proper legal basis.

    Original Description:

    Regarding singing of national anthem in Cinemas

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court decision requiring national anthem to be played in theaters before movies is out of place and undermines the separation of powers. 2) As a judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret laws, not create new ones. Making laws is the role of the legislative body. 3) Previously in 1986, the Supreme Court had ruled that forcing someone to sing the national anthem violates fundamental rights to free expression. However, the new ruling contradicts this and lacks proper legal basis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    681 views3 pages

    The National Anthem Case, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Sudhanshu Jatav
    1) The Supreme Court decision requiring national anthem to be played in theaters before movies is out of place and undermines the separation of powers. 2) As a judicial body, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret laws, not create new ones. Making laws is the role of the legislative body. 3) Previously in 1986, the Supreme Court had ruled that forcing someone to sing the national anthem violates fundamental rights to free expression. However, the new ruling contradicts this and lacks proper legal basis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Supreme Court once again taking away freedom in the name of Nationalism

    Not that I dont have any respect for the Honble Supreme Court of India but this theatrical
    decision to run National Anthem in theatres before a movie is so out of place that it is amusing.
    On 30th of November the court decided to appoint itself as the national anthems Protector-inchief, an entirely solicited role for which there was no particular need. The court banned
    dramatization of the anthem, banned people from deriving any kind of benefit from the
    anthems performance, partially banned the anthem from being printed and forced cinemas to
    play the anthem at the start of every film.1 The first few things that ran through my mind after
    going through that news were, what do we get out of this decision? Why is there a need for this?
    Why is Supreme Court role playing? Will this get implemented properly?
    As we all know, we have the concept of Separation of Powers and to implement the same,
    three separate bodies has been made Judiciary, Executive and Legislative, the three pillars of
    democracy. Our beloved Supreme Court is the crown of Judiciary and their role is to declare any
    law null or void if it violates the constitution (in a nutshell). Now the power to make laws goes
    with the legislative body, they are the policy making body of India, and every bill proposed by
    the executive is initiated, reviewed and discussed in the legislature. So the ill-fitting part here is
    the job of Supreme Court. Being a judicial body the court is not supposed to go all over the place
    and make laws, we have our legislative body competent enough to do that. The mighty Modi
    Sarkar as we all know was chosen by the people of India to be our representative and make laws.
    Government handles this part of the business and they are answerable to the citizens of India.
    Supreme Court is at the helm of the judiciary all the other courts come under it making it not
    answerable to anyone. The Supreme Court totally went out of their jurisdiction in this situation.
    Furthermore what makes me question the jurisdiction is the very question is that are judicial
    orders law for the purpose of Article 19(2)? Article 13(3) of the Constitution, which defines
    law for the purpose of Part III as any Ordinance, order, by law, rule. Regulation, notification,
    custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law, when read noscitur a sociis,
    seems not to include judicial orders. Now, it may be argued that various judgements have geld
    that Article 141 of the Constitution speaks of the law declared by the Supreme Court, and that
    1

    Bhairav Acharya (2016, December 2) National Anthem and Supreme Courts Popcorn Nationalism. Retrieved from
    http://thewire.in/83910/the-national-anthem-and-the-supreme-courts-popcorn-nationalism/

    consequently, Supreme Court judgements or orders constitute law. That is true, but textually,
    Article 141 only envisions the Supreme Court declaring law; more importantly, however, it
    does not follow that the word law used in Article 141 carries the same meaning as law under
    Article 13/19(2). To start with, textually, Article 13(3) prefaces its definitional terms with the
    phrase in this article...law includes... The definition, therefore, is specific to Part III of the
    Constitution. 2
    Lets get down the memory lane for a better understanding of the National Anthem Saga.
    Supreme Court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State of Kerala in 1986 decided that
    forcing someone to sing or stand for national anthem qualifies as the violation of the
    fundamental rights. This is no obligations on anyone to sing the anthem to show respect. The aim
    of getting independence from the British rule was to ultimately get freedom, the freedom to
    express opinions in any way one chooses, when in the shadow of nationalism government
    compels an individual to do something or to express their views in a predefined way they are, be
    it intentionally or unintentionally taking away that very freedom of free speech and expression.
    Now after 30 years Honble Mr. Justice Deepak Mishra and Honble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy in
    the case of Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India after quoting Art 51A Fundamental
    Duties stated, it is clear as crystal that it is a sacred obligation of every citizen to abide by the
    ideals engrafted in the constitution. And one such ideal is to show respect to the National
    Anthem and National Flag 3
    The problem with this judgement here is that Supreme Court tried to justify their puerile
    judgement backing it only on the basis of fundamental duties vested under Art 51: Fundamental
    duties It shall be the duties of every citizen of India- (a) to abide by the Constitution and
    respect its ideals and institutions, the National flag and the National anthem

    which does not

    even remotely justify as to how not standing for national anthem qualifies as disrespect towards
    the so called prestige of the Nation. Furthermore what comes into question is that whether there
    exists any legal basis on which theatres and other private institution can be compelled to play

    Indian Constitution and Philosophy (2016, November 30) The Illegality of the Supreme Courts National Anthem
    Order
    3
    Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India, 2016
    4
    The Constitution of India, 1949

    national anthem? There is absolutely no legal basis and wholly comes out as the violation of
    freedom of speech and trade.
    Looking at what J. Mishra said in his judgement Be it stated, the time has comes, the citizen of
    the country must realize that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National
    Anthem which is a symbol of constitutional patriotism and inherent constitutional quality. It does
    not allow any different notion or the perception of individual rights that have individually
    thought of have no space. The idea is constitutionally impermissible. It becomes a lot clear that
    his concept of respect for national anthem and perception of individual rights are rusty from its
    roots since it clearly ignores the fundamentals of legal theory. These kinds of weakly thought
    judgements are being delivered more often than not, which makes me question whether the
    Indian judiciary in its near future will be able to deliver the justice that was promised?

    You might also like