SC Anthem order a case of overreach

The virus of making citizens take a stand on nationalism or patriotism every day seems to have now crept into the Supreme Court, but it is far from clear under what law. Nor does it seem logical that the court should arrogate to itself the right or privilege of enacting legislation in this regard or any other. Lawmaking must remain the domain of the legislature.

A two-judge bench, moved by the perceptions of a septuagenarian in a decades-old cases, decided on Wednesday that the National Anthem shall be sung at the start of every film in every cinema in the country, and that those who paid for a ticket to watch the movie must further be called upon to display a sense of “committed patriotism” by standing up when the Anthem plays. The doors of the theatre must be kept shut to prevent them from seeking the exit.

Thus, those at a film show become a captive audience. But what of those who do not visit the cinema? How does the Supreme Court propose to extract the last ounce of patriotism out of them? Will the ruling be extended to the enactment of plays, the space of the circus, to football and cricket matches, or to home theatres? The court should coolly take on board the fact that its decision will end up being implemented by goon squads, as in the case of beef vigilantism.

The Supreme Court is among the few national institutions that still retain their credibility; and it has retained its dignity, even when the arena of justice as a whole struggles to give citizens their due. Why must then it play with zany ideas fit only for the rough and tumble of the political jungle or the drill yards of parties that are ultranationalistic or quasi-fascist in their flavour or orientation?

In the aftermath of the crushing defeat in 1962, when Aye mere watan ke logon became for millions the one way to extract solace, cinemas used to play the National Anthem when films ended. It was a completely silly idea even then, and had to be given up with the passage of time. But there was a tortured justification then. Today there is none.

Those well read in the law have said of the order that it is a case of “judicial legislation”, and of “overreach” by the Supreme Court. The political class is likely to keep quiet even if it disagrees with the court, for in today’s climate no party would like to be branded “anti-national”. We urge the Supreme Court itself to find a way to self-correct. It must show that it has faith in the sturdy unimposed patriotism of the masses.

Those at a film show become a captive audience. But what of those who do not visit the cinema? How does the Supreme Court propose to extract the last ounce of patriotism out of them?