The Big Story: Defining patriotism

The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to give India a lesson in how exactly it should respect the national anthem. In an order that many experts have deemed a massive gesture of judicial overreach, the court yet again ventured into lawmaking by asking cinema halls to play the national anthem before start of each show along with displaying the national flag on the screen.

This decree to cinema halls was accompanied by other sweeping comments that limit freedom of expression by placing the anthem even beyond artistic interpretation. The Supreme Court, which is supposed to be the ultimate guardian of the fundamental rights of citizens, devalued the notion of individual rights by claiming that it had no place in the context of respecting national symbols.

Advertisement

“Be it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realise that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality,” the bench said. “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.”

By laying the rules on how to respect the national symbols, the court has put in place a law that was not envisaged by Parliament.

The order has also reversed the cautious, liberal view the Supreme Court has taken in the past when dealing with cases under the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act. In 1986, the court took the side of three school children from Kerala who had refused to sing the national anthem during the school assembly every morning. Unlike the current interim order that placed collective responsibility over individual rights, the court decided in 1986 that forcing the children, who were faithful Jehovah’s witnesses, to sing the anthem was an infringement into their freedom of religion.

Advertisement

In developed western democracies, reverence to national symbols is not imposed at the cost of dissent. In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States went to the extent of allowing the desecration of the national flag, arguing that such an act was very much part of freedom of expression guaranteed under the Constitution.

There are also logistical problems that crop up with the order. How will the state implement it? Will policemen stand guard inside cinema halls and book those who do not show respect to the anthem in the manner decreed by the court? In October, the nation witnessed in disgust the assault on a differently-abled man in Goa who was physically incapable of standing up for the anthem. With this order, the Supreme Court may have inadvertently emboldened elements prone to takin the law into their own hands in the name of patriotism.

The Big Scroll

  • Nitin Pai writes on how the Supreme Court’s order in national anthem has undermined individual liberty.
  • Suresh Chandvankar traces the use of national anthem in movies. 

Subscribe to “The Daily Fix” by either downloading Scroll’s Android app oropting for it to be delivered to your mailbox. If you have thoughts or suggestions about the Fix, please email rohan@scroll.in.

Punditry

  1. In the Indian Express, Leela Prasad argues that making national anthem compulsory in cinema halls violates at least one of the six fundamental rights.
  2. Bharadwaj Rangan argues in The Hindu that the latest Supreme Court order yet again makes movies the target of tokenistic measures. 
  3. Yogesh Gupta in the Economic Times writes on what the demonetisation means for the debate on financial transparency in electoral spending.  

Don’t miss

A year after the devastating floods in Chennai, Vinita Govindarajan visits families who are still recovering from the natural calamity.

“A year later, they still remember it as they do that Sunday morning in November, when the floodwaters caught them unawares for the first time, destroying almost all their possessions and claiming three lives in the neighbourhood.

“If such a disaster strikes us again, none of us will be able to cope with it – physically, financially or emotionally,” said A Amudha, a resident.”