THE TRIBUNE, NEW DELHI, March 28, 2016
http://epaper.tribuneindia.com/c/9344409
Patriotic vs unpatriotic
There
are two intimate friends: A & B. A fondly, proudly and vociferously chants
"Bharat Mata ki jai, Vande Mataram, Jan gan man." B may not chant
what A chants, but nevertheless he/she with equal fondness and pride chants
"Saare jahan se achha Hindustan hamara, Madar-e-watan zindabad, Maa tujhe
salaam, Jai Hind, Hindustan zindabad". What is the tiff? Where is the
question of more or less patriotism or need for triggering off a hysterical
debate of patriotic vs unpatriotic? Both have their own way of expressing their
love for India. Steer clear of sectarian forces based on religion, region,
caste etc and be a calm, happy, progressive and proud Indian.
RAJENDER
GOYAL, Bahadurgarh
FULL PIECE READS THUS:
There are two intimate
friends namely A & B. A fondly, proudly and vociferously chants “Bharat
Mata Ki Jai, Vande Mataram, Jan Gan Man Adhinayak
Jay Ho Bharat Bhagy Vidhata”. B may not chant what A chants but nevertheless B,
with equal fondness, pride and vociferousness, chants “Sare Jahan Se Acha Hindustan Hamara, Madar
e-Watan Zindabad, Maa Tujhe Salaam, Jai Hind, Hindustan Zindabad”. What
is the fuss? Where is the tiff? Where is the question of more or less
patriotism or need for triggering off a hysterical debate of Patriotic vs
Unpatriotic? Both have their own way of expressing their reverence, love and
gratitude for their MOTHER LAND & GREAT NATION in a secular,
pluralistic, democratic Republic INDIA. However, A & B unequivocally hold
that their freedom of speech, expression, conscience, and of free
profession, practice and propagation of religion can never be
used/displayed/manifested/expressed in a way that it will end up hurting
the sentiments of either of them. They also say that it is ripe time to steer
clear of sectarian & divisive forces of all hue and colour (based on
religion, region, caste etc) and stay calm, happy, progressive and PROUD
INDIAN.
JAI HIND, JAI BHARAT, HINDUSTAN ZINDABAD, LONG LIVE INDIA,
BHARAT MATA KI JAI, VANDE MATARAM, INQLAB ZINDABAD
CONSTITUTIONAL,
STAUTORY AND JUDICIAL MATRIX:
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Article 51A (a) Fundamental Duty .- to abide by the Constitution
and respect its ideals and institutions, the National flag and theNational
Anthem
2. THE PREVENTION OF INSULTS
TO NATIONAL HONOUR ACT, 1971: Section 3.-
PREVENTION OF SINGING OF NATIONAL ANTHEM- 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.
3. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: Bijoe
Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors ( 11 August, 1986): held that there is no provision of law which obliges anyone to
sing the National Anthem nor is it disrespectful to the National Anthem if a
person who stands up respectfully when the National Anthem is sung does not
join the singing. Proper respect is shown to the National Anthem by standing up
when the National Anthem is sung. It will not be right to say that disrespect
is shown by not joining in the singing. Standing up respectfully when the
National Anthem is sung but not singing oneself clearly does not either prevent
the singing of the National Anthem or cause disturbance to an assembly engaged
in such singing so as to constitute the offence mentioned in S. 3 of the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.
Posts
10 comments:
Nobody needs to be forced to chant ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’:Sh. Mohan Bhagwat (RSS Chief) http://bit.ly/1pF9PV4
1/a
National Anthem Must Be Played Before Screening Films, Says Supreme Court
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 855/2016
SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (With office report)
Date : 30/11/2016
This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhinav Shrivastav,Adv. Mr. Rituvendra Singh,Adv. Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,AG Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda,Sr.Adv. Mr. Avijit Prasad,Adv. Ms. Movita,Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
We have heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India along with Mr. A.K. Panda, learned senior counsel for the Union of India. This Court on 28.10.2016 while entertaining the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India had noted the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, made reference to the enactment, namely, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. It had also taken note 2 of the averments in the petition. It has been averred in the petition that sometimes National Anthem is sung in various circumstances which are not permissible and can never be countenanced in law. The emphasis is on showing requisite and necessary respect when the National Anthem is sung or played. The assertion is that it is the duty of every person to show respect when the National Anthem is played or recited or sung. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and awaiting the reply from the Union of India, as an interim measure, it is directed that the following directions shall be scrupulously followed:- (a) There shall be no commercial exploitation to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit. To elaborate, the National Anthem should not be utilized by which the person involved with it either directly or indirectly shall have any commercial benefit or any other benefit. (b) There shall not be dramatization of the National Anthem and it should not be included as a part of any variety show. It is because when the National Anthem is sung or played it is imperative on the part of every one present to show due respect and honour. To think of a dramatized exhibition of the National Anthem is absolutely inconceivable. (c) National Anthem or a part of it shall not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places which 3 may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. It is because when the National Anthem is sung, the concept of protocol associated with it has its inherent roots in National identity, National integrity and Constitutional Patriotism. (d) All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem. (e) Prior to the National Anthem is played or sung in the cinema hall on the screen, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem. After the National Anthem is played or sung, the doors can be opened. (f) When the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, it shall be with the National Flag on the screen. (g) The abridge version of the National Anthem made by any one for whatever reason shall not be played or displayed. We have so directed as Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General for India submits with all humility at his command and recommend that National Anthem has to be respected. The
1/b
directions are issued, for love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National 4 Anthem as well as to the National Flag. That apart, it would instill the feeling within one, a sense committed patriotism and nationalism. In this regard, we may refer to clause (a) of Article 51(A), Fundamental Duties occurring in Part IVA of the Constitution. It reads as follows: “51A. Fundamental duties – It shall be the duty of every citizen of India – (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem”. From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that it is the sacred obligation of every citizen to abide by the ideals engrafted in the Constitution. And one such ideal is to show respect for the National Anthem and the National Flag. Be it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realize 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. 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. Mr. Rohatgi has submitted that the Union of India shall circulate this order to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories. That apart, Mr. Rohatgi submits that the order shall be shown in the electronic Media and 5 published in the print media so that every one knows that such an order has been passed and follow the same in letter and spirit. This order shall be given effect to within a period of 10 days. Let the matter be listed on 14th February, 2017 for further hearing. (Madhu Bala) (H.S. Parashar) Court Master Court Master
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/.../2016-11-30...
1/a
Thirteen years ago, same petitioner, same judge, and the anthem
As Madhya Pradesh HC judge, Justice Misra ruled against use of anthem in film, Supreme Court let screening go on.
Wednesday was not the first time that Justice Dipak Misra ruled on how and when the national anthem should be played in a cinema. Nor was Wednesday the first time that public interest petitioner Shyam Narayan Chouksey had succeeded in getting a court order over an “insult” to the national anthem. Thirteen years ago, when he was a judge in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Misra had passed a detailed order on the imperatives of showing respect to the national anthem.
Then, the petitioner before the High Court bench headed by him was none other than Chouksey — the same person on whose PIL the Supreme Court bench led by Justice Misra Wednesday issued slew of directives.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Chouksey described it as a “mere coincidence” that his PIL was heard by Justice Misra in the Supreme Court too, and maintained that his petition has highlighted several recent incidents of insulting the national anthem while annexing all other orders passed in the similar matter in the past.
In 2003, Chouksey moved a petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court accusing producer-director Karan Johar of insulting the national anthem in his movie ‘Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham’. Chouksey complained that a scene in the movie depicted the national anthem in poor light. Further, he rued that people in the hall did not stand when the anthem was played.
Allowing Chouksey’s petition, Justice Misra, authoring the Division Bench judgment in July 2003, had ordered that the movie shall be withdrawn from all theatres and could not be shown unless the producer removed the scene depicting the national anthem in what the judgment said was “contrary to national ethos and an anathema to the sanguinity of the national feeling”.
This order was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2004. 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.
In Bejoi Emannuel’s case, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ordered a school in Kerala to take back three children who had been expelled for not singing the National Anthem, although they stood during the Anthem. The children desisted from singing because of their conviction that their religion did not permit them to join any rituals except in their prayers to Jehovah, their God. The top court ruled that there is no legal provision that obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem, and it is not disrespectful to the Anthem if a person who stands up respectfully when it is being sung does not join in the singing. It, however, did not deal with the issue of whether it would be disrespectful if a person chose not to stand during the National Anthem.
Meanwhile, on an appeal by Karan Johar against Justice Misra’s verdict, a three-judge bench led by then Chief Justice V N Khare set aside the High Court order on April 19, 2004, stating it was not mandatory to stand when the national anthem is played.
“We are satisfied that in view of the instructions issued by the Government of India that the national anthem
which is exhibited in the course of exhibition of newsreel or documentary or in a film, the audience is not expected to stand as the same interrupts the exhibition of the film and would create disorder and confusion, rather than add to the dignity of the national anthem,” it said.
However, Chouksey moved a review petition against this order, pointing out that he was not heard at the time of this order despite filing a caveat. On October 21, 2005, a bench headed by then Chief Justice R C Lahoti allowed his review petition and recalled the 2004 order. “In our opinion, the questions of law arising for decision have far-reaching implications and need to be noticed and considered by this Court,” said Justice Lahoti although he said that the issue of certification to the movie need not be gone into any further.
This matter later came up for hearing before another three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal on November 15, 2006. This time, the court simply disposed it of saying that the questions of law were being left open and would be determined in an appropriate case.
http://indianexpress.com/.../supreme-court-cinema-halls.../
1/a If a physically challenged person or physically handicapped person goes to the Cinema hall to watch a film, he need not stand up, if he is incapable to stand, but must show such conduct which is commensurate with respect for the National Anthem... doors shall be closed, did not mean that the doors shall be bolted... but only to regulate the ingress and egress during the period while the National Anthem is played... As far as the recall of the order is concerned, the same has to be heard on merits when the matter is finally debated upon...
ITEM NO.801 COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL(W) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IA Nos.___________/2016 in Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 855/2016 SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for impleadment and recall of the order dated 30.11.2016 and office report) Date : 09/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Rituvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Hameet Singh R., Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, AG Mr. R.K. Rathore, Ad. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. (AC) Ms. Tara Narula, Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Supriya Juneja, Adv. Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Adv. Ms. Sinha T.P., Adv. Mr. R. Beniwal, Adv. Mr. Namit Saxena, Adv. Mr. Biresh K., Adv. Mr. Arushi Singh, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These two applications have been filed one seeking impleadment in the writ petition and the other for recall of the order dated 2 30.11.2016. On being mentioned by Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel, the I.As. are taken on Board. Registry is directed to register the I.As. Heard Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior
1/b
counsel along with Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India, and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel who has sought leave of the Court to assist. The prayer in the application is for recall of our order dated 30.11.2016. When it was brought to the notice of Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel about the grounds urged, we must fairly state that Mr. Singh submitted that he will have a re-look at the grounds and will amend the same. As far as the recall of the order is concerned, the same has to be heard on merits when the matter is finally debated upon. Be it noted, Mr. Dinesh, learned counsel for the applicant at the time of mentioning had submitted that there has to be some kind of exemption for the physically challenged persons or physically handicapped persons. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel who was present in Court has referred to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for India submitted that how the physically challenged or physically handicapped persons shall show respect to the National Anthem, the Central Government will issue guidelines within ten days hence. As the guidelines are going to be issued, we clarify, if a physically challenged person or physically handicapped person goes to the Cinema hall to watch a film, he need not stand up, if he is incapable to stand, but must show such conduct which is commensurate with respect for the National Anthem. When we say physically challenged or physically 3 handicapped persons, it means persons with disability as defined under Sections 2(i) and 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Another aspect needs to be cleared. When we said that the doors shall be closed, we did not mean that the doors shall be bolted as mentioned in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and Ors. [(2011) 14 SCC 481] but only to regulate the ingress and egress during the period while the National Anthem is played. Let the matter be listed on the date fixed, i.e., 14.2.2017. (Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher) Court Master Court Master
Play And Sing Vande Mataram Regularly In All Educational Institutions, Govt. Offices,Private Companies: Madras HC... 25 July 2017
The following are the directions issued by the Court: “(a) The National Song “Vande Matharam” shall be played and sung in all schools/colleges/Universities and other educational institutions at least once a week (Preferably on Monday or Friday); (b...
(b)The National Song “Vande Matharam” shall be played and sung in all Government Offices and Institutions/Private companies/ Factories and industries at least once a Month; (c)The Director of Public Information is directed to upload and circulate th...
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/play-sing-vande-mataram-regularly-educational-institutions-govt-officesprivate-companies-madras-hc/
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/play-sing-vande-mataram-regularly-educational-institutions-govt-officesprivate-companies-madras-hc/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzXilfcxe7yuMUxiZjZGWXdRUTg/view
No concept of a National Song in the law..no to policy on ‘Vande Mataram: Hon'ble SUPREME COURT on 17th Feb 2017
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/sc-no-to-policy-on--vande-mataram/365875.html
Art 51A(a) does'nt refer to NATIONAL SONG...only refers to NATIONAL FLAG and NATIONAL ANTHEM...we do'nt intend to enter into any debate qua NATIONAL SONGS...:- Hon'ble SUPREME COURT on 17th Feb 2017
http://www.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/2863533.pdf
Dr RAJENDRA PRASAD in CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY on 24 Janauary 1950:
British government charged Indians with sedition for singing Vande Mataram. Contrarily, Jana Gana Mana was glorified, and was soon sung in Government schools, and organizations fostering loyalty to the British throne. Eventually, it went on to replace Vande Mataram as the National Anthem officially, when Dr Rajendra Prasad, presiding the Constituent assembly on 24 January 1950, said, "THE COMPOSITION CONSISTING OF WORDS AND MUSIC KNOWN AS JANA GANA MANA IS THE NATIONAL ANTHEM OF INDIA, SUBJECT TO SUCH ALTERATIONS AS THE GOVERNMENT MAY AUTHORIZE AS OCCASION ARISES, AND THE SONG VANDE MATARAM, WHICH HAS PLAYED A HISTORIC PART IN THE STRUGGLE FOR INDIAN FREEDOM, SHALL BE HONOURED EQUALLY WITH JANA GANA MANA AND SHALL HAVE EQUAL STATUS WITH IT. I HOPE THIS WILL SATISFY MEMBERS."
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/saregama/the-tunes-that-stir-our-hearts-the-songs-of-our-nation_a_21451594/
Post a Comment