The exemptions, granted earlier by the court to persons who cannot stand up because of their specified disabilities, would continue.
The court had justified that playing the anthem in movie halls allowed the public to express their ‘love for the motherland’.
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.
For some judges, substance is inversely proportional to verbosity. If this trend is not stopped, Indian jurisprudence will permanently suffer.
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?