NATIONAL ANTHEM IN CINEMA HALLS: A BRIEF STUDY

Transcription

1 NATIONAL ANTHEM IN CINEMA HALLS: A BRIEF STUDY Arathy.R 1 & Aiswarya.Ravikumar 2 ABSTRACT Patriotism is a hard concept to assimilate. It is not solely about showing loyalty and respect to one s country, but it is more about the love towards the country. It does not mean that there is a belief that one s country is the absolute best, but it means that there is pride in one s origins and a desire for that country to thrive. When we talk about patriotism national anthem is an indispensable part of it. ARTICLE 51A of Indian constitution makes it the Fundamental duty of every Indian citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. There have been arising so many issues in India regarding the disrespecting of national anthem and thus violating Article 51A of Indian Constitution. This article mainly focuses on the order of Supreme Court to play national anthem in cinema theaters. Keywords: India, National Anthem, Theaters 1 4th Year B.COM LLB Student, School Of Legal Studies, CUSAT 2 4th Year BBA LLB Student, School Of Legal Studies, CUSAT 1 P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW

2 NATIONAL ANTHEM IN CINEMA HALLS: A BRIEF STUDY India witnessed the magic of cinema for the first time in 1896 when Lumiere brothers unveiled six soundless short films at Bombay. Indian cinema exhibited uninterrupted growth since then, narrating stories of myths, history, war, culture, and valour cutting across borders developing itself to an art and passion. Time has come when cinema is viewed as a catalyst to social change or one of the most powerful medium of communication. Cinema and patriotism were two independent topics like cheese and chalk until the supreme courts string of interim orders on a Public interest litigation filed by Shyam Narayan Chouksey 3 ordered national anthem to be played before the screening of movies in cinema hall. Before analyzing this Public interest ligation the decision of hon Madhya Pradesh high court and hon supreme court in a case filed by the very same petitioner must be referred; adverting to the factual score of Shyam Narayan Chouksey ;the petitioners went to see the movie KABHI KHUSHI KABHI GAM directed by Karan Johar. There was a scene in the movie in which the national anthem was sung by the son of the male protagonist in a school function at London. The petitioner found that only a few including himself stood up for the national anthem he felt this as an outright insult to the national honour. In not finding any positive response from the local administrative functionaries he himself distributed handbills among the viewers to create awareness. When this attempt failed to make the expected impact the petitioners, Mr Shyam Narayan Chouksey approached court seeking to restrain commercial use of national anthem. The respondent in the counter affidavit stated that the movie had an unrestricted exhibition certificate granted by the censor board it was contented that a film cannot trailer the reaction of public towards national anthem and issuing prior intimation will affect the flow of the film. The respondent further contented that there has been no violation of law and commercial exploitation of national anthem. The amicus curiae Mr S.K. Yadav submitted that national anthem cannot be a tool of advertisement and when it becomes a facet of commerce there is disrespect and dishonour to the national honour. Honourable High Court in this case referred the statement of objects and reasons to the prevention of insults to national honour act of 1971(act 69 of 971) and urged government to prevent recurrence of such incidents. The court in the 2003 judgement held that the film must not be screened in any 3 AIR 2003 MP P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW

3 theater unless the scene that had an inappropriate depiction of national anthem is deleted.the court also decided not to telecast the film in national channels and satellite channels without deletion of the respective scene. However this decision was set aside by the Supreme Court in But later, on a review petition moved by Chouksey, the apex court recalled its 2004 order and agreed to reconsider various questions of law involved in this matter. Finally, in November 2006, the top court brought the curtain down on this case, saying the questions of law were being left open and that it would deal with the issues in some other matter. The Supreme Court, however, allowed the movie to be screened in its original form, without any cuts or deletion of the scene on the national anthem. In 2016 Shyam Narayan Chouksey approached the honourable supreme court of India, this time with a Public interest ligation requiring national anthem to be played at theaters. The Public interest ligation further seeks the court to issue a set of parameters on what amounts to abuse of national anthem. It was averred in this petition that sometimes national anthem is sung in various circumstances which are not permissible and can never be countenanced in law. To illustrate this; the following instance were submitted, a very short version of the national anthem played at the swearing-in ceremony of AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa as chief minister of Tamil Nadu, the instance of Uttar Pradesh governor Ram Naik stopping the national anthem midway during an oath-taking function for state minister and the images of paper food plates with the national anthem printed strewn on streets after a marriage function. The Supreme Court on considering this Public interest ligation passed an interim order making it imperative on the part of every one present to stand up and show the honour. The bench by this interim order also retrained printing or displaying the national anthem or a part of it on any object and in such a manner at such places which may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. An analysis of this interim order cannot be complete without referring to Bijoe Emmanuel V. State of Kerala, In this case the appellants-three children who belonged to a sect called Jehovah s witnesses,a community that worship only Jehovah-the creator and none other, refused to sing the national anthem: 'JANA GANA MANA' because, according to them, it was against the tenet of their religious faith. They desisted from actual singing only because of their aforesaid honest belief and conviction but they used to stand up in respectful silence daily, during the morning assembly when the national anthem was sung. A commission was appointed to enquire and report 3 P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW

4 and it reported that the children were "law abiding" and that they showed no disrespect to the national anthem. However, under the instructions of deputy inspector of schools, the head mistress expelled the appellants from school from July 26, 1985.a representation by the father of the children to the education authorities requesting that the children may be permitted to attend the school pending orders from the government having failed, the appellants filed a writ petition in the high court seeking an order restraining the authorities from preventing them from attending the school. A single judge and then a division bench rejected the prayer of the appellants. The supreme court of India overturning this decision directed to re-admit the children into the school, to permit them to pursue their studies without hindrance and to facilitate the pursuit of their studies by giving them the necessary facilities. This decision was celebrated on account of having set a precedent for tolerance in India. Justice Chinnappa Reddy with regard to this judgement quoted our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it. Unfortunately we are no longer prating tolerance that we once preached. And that is why we are now discussing about a decision that attempts to force feed patriotism. Recurrent events of elderly and handicapped getting attacked in the name of disrespect to national anthem triggered the petitioner to file this Public interest ligation seeking the honourable court to determine on what amounts to abuse of national anthem. The very same events were the reason for the court to arrive at a controversial interim order in a very short span of time. But the need and efficacy of this decision had to be called in question. This decision attempts to in still patriotism at least that is what the claim is, but it should be understood that patriotism is not something to be force-fed. Had this order been from a teacher to a primary school student this would be making sense, but when the top court of a country renders the same decision to its citizen we need to rethink. To quote Samuel Johnson in this context; patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. A person can pretend to be patriotic when he is simply a scoundrel.so does simply rising from ones seat on hearing national anthem in a cinema hall make one patriot? National anthem is to be respected, and there is nothing wrong in standing up when the national anthem is played. But in a cinema hall where there can be around four to five shows in a day, would playing national anthem all this four; five times before a cinema make citizens patriotic. 4 P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW

5 The next important issue is that this is a clear case of judicial overreach. The classic duty of court is to adjudicate. Again, the court can legislate when the meets of justice cannot be reached otherwise. But here there is no such circumstance; no right is forfeited in the absence of a judgement that mandates playing national anthem in theaters. The authority or power to formulate rules before playing national anthem before screening is upon executive. This Supreme Court decision violates the idea of separation of powers.secondly, this decision is nothing but an encroachment to individual autonomy. Though often justified by arguments like individual rights are not supreme, this argument is inherently weak. The issue that led to the institution of this Public interest ligation was mainly because a group of men humiliated and caused physical injury to a man confined to wheel chair because he didn t stand up when the national anthem was played, but this real incident got sidelined and even now no directions addressing a solution to prevent recurrence of such incidents has come in to force. A few of such unfortunate incidents includes writer Salil Chaturvedi got assaulted by a couple for not standing up for national anthem. The true patriots failed to understand that he was suffering from spinal injury., a south African woman chose to not stand up for the national anthem in a Mumbai cinema. She explained that she was not an Indian citizen and has made no geopolitical commitments to India. She objects to the idea of nationalism as a concept in which the population is a homogenized collective characterized by the country in which they are born and most importantly, she was uncomfortable with the idea that it was forced. She was assaulted. Twelve persons including two women were arrested for not standing while the anthem was being played at the international film festival of Kerala (IFFK) in Thiruvananthapuram. This again shows how grave the situation is. Another incident in which eight persons, including three women assaulted by a group of twenty persons in a Chennai cinema hall for not standing when the anthem was playing points to the same direction. The eight who were assaulted were booked by police under the prevention of insults to National Honour Act, Police gave the explanation that they registered a case against the eight as the other group had cited the Supreme Court order. Therefore, this controversial order had created a law and order problem, which was unexpected. It is worth noting from all these incidents that this order has resulted in indirectly making citizens to have an erroneous notion that they are the ones to decide what disrespect to national anthem is and 5 P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW

6 what is not. And they are justified if they beat up the so called anti nationalists it appears that standing up on hearing national anthem in a cinema hall is the litmus test of patriotism. However, the intention behind this decision was very pure. It was primarily aiming to create a connected feeling in the mind of every citizen who has assembled. The court was of the opinion that it will inculcate a nationalist feeling in the mind of every Indian. Justice Deepak Mishras comment universalism is fine, but when the question is who you are, you are an Indian first depicts the same. Further, how hard it takes to stand up for fifty-two seconds when our very own national anthem plays is another questions kept under the judgement when all this controversies heated up. The judgement cannot be completely criticized when willful disrespect for these sacred symbols of Indian nationhood has become a fashion; a fad for the mocking generation of our deracinated urban elite. Seen in this context, the judge cannot be faulted for pointing out that citizens of the country must realize that they live in a nation, and reiterating that the idea of individual rights prevailing over national identity is constitutionally impermissible.the judgement reinforces that not only we have fundamental rights but also fundamental duties. However, when the order came in to practice, it did not happen the way judiciary wanted it to be. Rather than generating a feeling of unity, frequent incidents of violence, intense arguments with regard to individual autonomy and freedom raised up. Definitely, there is no harm in standing up to the national anthem, but there is definite harm if someone is humiliated for not doing so. National anthem played at the beginning of public gatherings and official functions as determined by the government and its respective ministry of internal affairs. Is to help promote a spirit of allegiance this, however, is promoting a spirit that has nothing to do with patriotism of any sort.so patriotism is not only about standing up on hearing national anthem but about being a responsible citizen for the state. Let s focus on that instead. 6 P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW

7 7 P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW