What do you think of Supreme Court's decision of playing National Anthem in all cinemas?

The Supreme Court of India's decision to mandate the playing of the national anthem in all cinema halls has been a subject of significant debate and criticism. Here are some key points and perspectives:

Initial Mandate

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that it was mandatory for movie theaters to play the national anthem before every film screening, and all cinema-goers were required to stand up during the anthem. The purpose was to "instill committed patriotism and nationalism" and to reflect love and respect for the motherland234.

Criticisms

• Many critics argued that this order infringed upon the right to freedom of speech and expression, as it forced individuals to stand up and show respect in a specific manner. This was seen as a form of forced patriotism rather than genuine expression of national pride23.
• The order was also criticized for its practical implications, such as the potential safety risks associated with locking the doors during the anthem, which could be hazardous in case of emergencies34.
• There were concerns about the enforcement of this rule, particularly in cases where individuals might have valid reasons for not standing, such as physical disabilities or personal beliefs4.

Reconsideration

In a later development, the Supreme Court suggested that the government should decide whether to modify the order. The court indicated that people do not need to stand up at a cinema hall to prove their patriotism and that the government should consider regulating the playing of the national anthem without the court's interference1.

Modified Stance

Eventually, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order, making it optional for cinema halls to play the national anthem before every show. This change acknowledged the concerns about forced patriotism and the practical difficulties in enforcing the original mandate5.

Government and Public Views

• The government had argued that the national anthem could serve as a unifying force in a diverse country, but this argument was countered by the court's observation that patriotism should not be worn on one's sleeve1.
• Public reactions were mixed, with some welcoming the move as a way to instill national pride, while others saw it as an unnecessary imposition4.

In summary, while the initial decision was intended to foster patriotism, it faced significant criticism for its potential to infringe on individual rights and for practical concerns. The subsequent modification to make the playing of the national anthem optional reflects a more balanced approach that respects both national pride and individual freedoms.