NOTE4STUDENTS:

This article offers a deep dive into the laws and practices regarding the National Anthem in India, presenting a balance between respecting national symbols and protecting individual freedoms. UPSC often frames questions focusing on constitutional provisions, fundamental duties, or landmark judgments. It might ask about the significance of Article 51A(a) or analyze cases like Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. Students often falter in understanding how constitutional provisions, judgments, and laws interact. There’s confusion about what is legally mandated versus customary. They also struggle to present balanced arguments when tackling issues of patriotism, rights, and state mandates. This article simplifies these complex intersections by presenting: Key takeaways from Supreme Court judgments, Specific examples of state practices and insights into challenges of enforcing national identity. What stands out in this article is its clear breakdown of the balance between patriotism and individual rights, using real-life examples and landmark judgments.

PYQ ANCHORING & MICROTHEMES:

GS 2: “The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society”. Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. [2023]

Microthemes: Fundamental rights

As per the Governor office, the Tamil Nadu assembly disrespected the Constitution by not playing the National Anthem at the beginning of the governor’s address. As per the convention of the Tamil Nadu assembly, the State Anthem (‘Tamil Thai Vazhthu’) is played at the beginning of the Governor’s address. The National Anthem is played at the end of the address.

**This practice was started in 1991, prior to that there was no practice of playing either of the anthems.

LAWS AND PRACTICES REGARDING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN INDIA

India’s laws and conventions related to the National Anthem reflect a balance between promoting respect for national symbols and protecting individual rights. Below is an overview of constitutional provisions, legal directives, Supreme Court judgments, and notable practices concerning the National Anthem.

1. Constitutional Provisions and Fundamental Duties

Article 51A(a) (Fundamental Duties): Citizens are duty-bound to “abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag, and the National Anthem.”This provision emphasizes the moral obligation to respect national symbols, but it does not enforce mandatory practices.

2. Guidelines by the Ministry of Home Affairs

The Ministry of Home Affairs has issued detailed instructions on when the National Anthem should be played or sung. Key occasions include:
- Civil and military ceremonies, such as investitures and parades.
- Formal state functions attended by the President, Governors, or Lieutenant Governors.
- Cultural or ceremonial events during flag hoisting or mass singing.
- When regimental or naval colors are presented during parades.
For mass singing, the Anthem is required during events such as cultural functions and on occasions involving the President.

3. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

Section 3: Prohibits preventing the singing of the National Anthem and prescribes penalties of up to three years imprisonment, a fine, or both.
General Conduct: The audience is expected to stand in attention whenever the Anthem is played, except when it is part of a newsreel or documentary.

4. Supreme Court Judgments and Case Law

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986):
- Three children from the Jehovah’s Witness sect were expelled from school for not singing the National Anthem. The Supreme Court ruled that forcing them to sing violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion (Article 25).
- The court emphasized that standing respectfully suffices as respect for the Anthem.
Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018):
- The Supreme Court initially ordered that the National Anthem be played before movies in cinemas and the audience must stand.
- This directive was later modified to make playing the Anthem in cinemas optional, balancing respect for the Anthem with individual choice.

While laws and directives promote respect for the National Anthem, the judiciary has consistently upheld the importance of protecting individual rights:

Forcing participation in singing the Anthem violates fundamental rights.
Courts have emphasized that playing the National Anthem is often a matter of custom rather than a legal mandate.

5. State-Specific Practices: National Anthem practices vary across states, reflecting a lack of uniform mandate:

Nagaland: The National Anthem was played for the first time in its Assembly in 2021.
Tripura: It was introduced in the Assembly for the first time in 2018.
Tamil Nadu: The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking punishment for not playing the National Anthem during a foundation-laying ceremony in 2019, stating that it is a convention, not a mandate.

CHALLENGES: BALANCING THE ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL SYMBOLS WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

Challenges	Explanation	Examples & Supreme Court Judgments
Freedom of Expression vs. State Mandates	Tension between individual freedoms and state-imposed mandates, such as the requirement to stand for the national anthem, raises concerns about personal liberties.	Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018): SC ruled that playing the national anthem in cinemas was optional, not mandatory.
Fundamental Duties vs. Civil Liberties	Citizens are expected to respect the national anthem under Article 51A, but controversies arise when enforcing such duties infringes on personal freedoms.	Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): SC protected the right of children not to sing the anthem due to religious beliefs.
Cultural Nationalism vs. Secularism	The push to enforce national symbols intersects with India’s secular identity, raising debates about inclusivity and respect for religious and cultural differences.	Madras High Court (2019): Court dismissed a petition demanding the anthem at a foundation ceremony, citing no mandate for it.
Modifying Legal Interpretations	The role of courts in interpreting laws that balance respect for national symbols and individual rights, often evolving over time.	Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2018): SC modified its earlier order on anthem in cinemas, emphasizing it was optional.
Balancing Patriotism with Individual Rights	The need to uphold patriotism and national symbols is weighed against ensuring individual rights, particularly for minority groups or those with differing beliefs.	Dr. Tawseef Ahmad Bhat v. State of J&K (2021): HC ruled that failure to stand during the anthem is not an offense unless it causes disturbance.
Enforcement of National Identity	The controversies highlight efforts to enforce a unified national identity through symbols like the national anthem, raising questions about inclusivity and the effectiveness of such mandates.	Karnataka Government’s 2024 Order: Controversy over exemptions for private schools from singing the state anthem, later amended.

Conclusion

India’s approach to the National Anthem blends respect for national symbols with democratic freedoms. Legal safeguards ensure that the Anthem is treated with dignity, but participation remains largely voluntary, reflecting the country’s pluralistic ethos.

#BACK2BASICS: CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTISM

Constitutional patriotism means devotion, love, and loyalty towards the Constitution. Although, we can say that the Constitution best caters to the needs of the people and is a great choice to adopt the concept of constitutional patriotism but that is only in theoretical terms. It is quite difficult to execute. Everyone respects each other but still there lies religious and cultural differences between people. Everyone thinks highly of their culture and treats the other one below themselves. Therefore, shifting this respect and love from their respective values and norms to a fixed set of rules can be a bit challenging

Elements and Examples of Constitutional Patriotism in India

Element	Example in Indian Context
Adherence to Constitutional Principles	Campaigns like the “Right to Education Act (RTE)” ensure every child gets access to education, upholding equality and justice as constitutional principles.
Respect for Pluralism	Celebrating diverse festivals like Eid, Diwali, and Christmas across the nation while ensuring public offices remain secular, reflecting respect for pluralism.
Upholding Rule of Law	Landmark judgments such as the decriminalization of Section 377 of the IPC (2018) showcase the enforcement of constitutional rights over societal prejudices.
Fostering Equal Citizenship	Reservation policies under Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution ensure affirmative action to provide equal opportunities for marginalized communities.
Educational Awareness of the Constitution	Initiatives like the Constitution Day celebrations (November 26) and inclusion of constitutional values in school curriculums raise awareness among citizens.

MAJOR JUDGEMENTS IN THE PAST

Year	Incident	Supreme Court Judgment
2016	Mandatory Playing in Cinema Halls: The Supreme Court issued an interim order mandating that all cinema halls play the national anthem before the screening of films, requiring audiences to stand as a sign of respect.	Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India: The Court later modified its order in 2017, making the playing of the national anthem in cinema halls optional rather than mandatory.
2017	Vande Mataram Status: A petition was filed seeking to equate ‘Vande Mataram’ with the national anthem and make its singing compulsory in schools.	The Supreme Court sought a response from the Centre on why ‘Vande Mataram’ should not be treated on par with the national anthem but did not issue a directive making its singing mandatory.
2016	National Anthem in Courts: A plea was made to mandate the playing of the national anthem in all courts before proceedings.	The Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea, stating that its previous order on the national anthem should not be overstretched.
2021	Dr. Tawseef Ahmad Bhat vs. State of J&K & Anr: Dr. Bhat was charged under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, for not standing during the national anthem at a university event. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that mere disrespect to the national anthem is not an offense under Section 3; it penalizes only intentional prevention or causing disturbance during its singing.	The court emphasized that while citizens have a fundamental duty to respect the national anthem under Article 51A(a) of the Constitution, failure to do so is not punishable unless it involves preventing or causing disturbance during its singing.
2024	Karnataka Government’s Order on State Anthem: The Kannada and Culture Department issued an order exempting private schools from singing the state anthem during assemblies, sparking controversy. The order was later termed a “printing mistake” and rectified to include all schools.	This incident did not involve a Supreme Court judgment but highlighted the sensitivity surrounding the singing of national and state anthems in educational institutions.