Judges don't need to play national anthem in courts: Judges. Really, Supreme Court?
With the Supreme Court's November 30 order — making it mandatory for cinema halls to play the national anthem before a movie — still being hotly-debated and criticised, the apex court today (December 2) refused to entertain a plea seeking playing of national anthem in all courts before the start of proceedings.
The panel, in its November 30 order, had noted that everyone present in the theatre must rise and pay respect to the national anthem while it is being played. In addition, the national flag should be shown on screenand no one can exit or enter the hall while the anthem is being played.
"When the national anthem is played it is imperative for everyone to show honour and respect. It would instil a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism," said the judges.
Many had argued against the court's directive, saying it was akin to forcing patriotism down the throats of ordinary citizens, and that cinema halls are no places for displaying nationalism.
Some also wondered as to why only cinema halls were the target of the court's misplaced nationalism exercise. It obviously begged the question: why not government offices or Parliament? Better still, why not start with the judiciary itself - play the anthem before every court proceeding. After all, charity begins at home.
 |
| The national anthem is not mandatory at the Supreme Court. |
The petitioner in this case, Ashwin Upadhyaya, a lawyer, while appreciating the SC's earlier order said, "It [playing anthem in cinema halls] is a great order. The court can modify it to make it mandatory in all courts, including the Supreme Court."
But the court rejected his plea, saying that playing national anthem in cinema halls before the movie starts should not be "overstretched".
The court said, "The national anthem is not mandatory at the Supreme Court. There is no proper petition before the court in this regard. We can't impose it across the bar in this manner."
Considering the court's observation (logic) behind its November 30 order — “love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the national anthem as well as to the national flag and that it would instill within one a sense committed patriotism and nationalism” — one wonders if our honourable judges and lawyers do not need to show the "love and respect for our motherland"; this duty, it seems, lies with the ordinary citizens only.
Or, it could also be true that our honourable judges and lawyers are already so committed to the "feeling of patriotism " that they don't need to "prove" their nationalistic credentials.
Considering the apex court's November 30 diktat, the latter seems to be the only logical inference. However, it would be more reasonable to say that logic, indeed, has taken a backseat and this is truly the theatre of the absurd.
Honourable judges of the Supreme Court, can the real nationalists please stand up?
Clearly, people on social media and elsewhere are not amused and are calling out these double standards:
#SupremeCourt want #nationalanthem in cinemas but refuses to play it in courts. #hypocrisy
— Akhil Bharathan (@akhil_bharathan) December 2, 2016
From the NewYorker #NationalAnthem pic.twitter.com/wxfH8Ji0kG
— Mahesh Rao (@mraozing) November 30, 2016
I wish #NationalAnthem should be played in the starting of each serial episode and reality show like #BiggBoss10!
— KRK (@kamaalrkhan) December 1, 2016
#NationalAnthem Supreme Court rejects National Anthem in courts. But preaches nationalism in cinemas!!! Why?
— babu dayanand (@dayanand_babu) December 2, 2016
Isn't it strange that the #supremecourt wants the #nationalanthem to be played in cinemas but is opposed to the same being sung in courts?
— Abey Andrews (@AbeyAndrews) December 2, 2016
The to-do list of the Supreme Court of India. #NationalAnthem pic.twitter.com/xzb7xqK2QS
— Akeel Shaikh (@akeelshk) December 2, 2016