Supreme Court shouldn't stop at rethink on National Anthem order, it should scrap it
The Supreme Court having second thoughts on its order enforcing playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls is good news. The order, delivered in November 2016, was a sad commentary on the top court's credentials as the ultimate arbiter of individual rights.
The order had made it mandatory for all cinemas to play the National Anthem before the screening of a film. It also mandated the Tricolour to be displayed on the screen while the anthem was played and banned dramatising, abridging or monetising the anthem. Those inside the cinema hall are required to stand up and to ensure that they don't move around, all doors are to be closed for the duration.
The order was a startling example of forced patriotism and ended up making the apex court look like a part of the wave of hyper nationalism that has a large section of the country's population is in grip. Over the last few months, several incidents have been reported from many parts of the country wherein misdirected enthusiasts in cinema halls heckled and bullied those fellow cinema-goers who didn't feel like standing up.
Justice DY Chandrachud did well by flagging that the order had been misused to call people anti-national. "People go out for a movie for entertainment. Sometimes, they go in their shorts. Next, we may have to say they can't wear shorts. Where do you draw the line at moral policing?" he reportedly said.
He also asked why should it be presumed that “not singing the National Anthem in a theatre makes a person anti-national?” and stressed that patriotism comes from a society's democratic values and not through court orders. CJI Dipak Misra, who headed the bench that gave the original order in 2016, showed some reluctance in agreeing entirely with Justice Chandrachud.
However, he did concede that the order may be an infringement on powers of the executive and the legislature and that the government may come out with rules on the issue. The government, of course, defended the mandatory part of the original order and argued in favour of continuing with it.
This gives a fair idea of what the government is likely to do if the ball is lobbed in its court. It is necessary, therefore, that the SC itself should amend the mistake that it has made and not leave the task to the government. The order was an aberration in the first place and the top court should not hesitate from throwing it out of the window, now that it has reviewed it.
