Ashok Lahoty warned that anyone opposing this decision “should go to Pakistan”.
Ultimately, the bench decided to leave it to the government to decide whether its order needs to be diluted or further cemented.
Compelling citizens to listen to the national anthem with the objective of inculcating patriotism and nationalism violates the very autonomy that the nine-judge bench of the apex court recently upheld.
An intervener in the case has argued that decisions like making the singing of the national anthem compulsory should rest with parliament and not the judiciary.
Anirban Nandy, who suffers from hypertension, was subjected to verbal abuse and harassment involving the police.
Nothing much has changed from the time I was attacked by goons 17 years ago, says director Hansal Mehta
What the home ministry’s new guidelines on how the disabled must show their respect for the national anthem tell us about the politics of pure nationalism.
Activists say exempting persons with disabilities is not the answer, but the law should take the reality into account and provide guidelines accordingly.
The victim, Amalraj Dasan, was allegedly hit on his face by a person for not standing up while the national anthem was being played in a scene during the screening of film Dangal.
Instilling a feeling of national unity can be a legitimate state interest but such a feeling cannot be pursued at the cost of individual liberty.
Eminent poets, politicians and students groups had criticised the charges of sedition against the author and had implored the state government to intervene.
Although a law exists that criminalises insulting the national flag, national anthem and the constitution, it does not make it mandatory for a citizen to stand up when the anthem is played. The apex court has thus created a new offence without any legislation to back it.
The Constituent Assembly debates show that those who drafted the constitution did not favour the inclusion of symbols, such as the national anthem, in its text.
The court’s appeal to constitutional patriotism in its order on the national anthem demonstrates a forsaking of intellectual enquiry into political theory and law, and a perilous road to judicial hegemony.
Nine members of the audience who decided not to stand up for the national anthem on principle during the screening of a film were assaulted during the interval.
In 1950, soon after India became a republic, a question was raised in Parliament: “Will the minister of home affairs be pleased to share what are the national anthems of India?” In the wake of independence with the process of nation building just having begun, the phrasing of […]
The court also clarified that the doors of the theatres need not be bolted when the national anthem is played.
The Supreme Court order encroaches on the functions of the executive and legislature, bypassing the checks-and-balances system enshrined in the constitution.
Citing the cinema hall precedent, petitioner wants the national anthem to be played before the commencement of proceedings in all courts across the country.
For some judges, substance is inversely proportional to verbosity. If this trend is not stopped, Indian jurisprudence will permanently suffer.
If nationalism, the way its sternest adherents argue, is a deep and overwhelming sentiment, then why do we need a disciplining machine to enforce that sentiment in us?
It is clear that the law requires an active act of disturbance to constitute an offence, but does it include a quiet refusal to stand for the national anthem?
The court also directed that the national flag should be shown on screen when the anthem is played.