New Delhi: Reversing its order, the Supreme Court today held that playing of national anthem in cinema halls before screening of films is no longer mandatory and left it to a government panel to frame guidelines on this sensitive matter.
The apex court said that playing of national anthem in cinema halls before screening of movies would now be optional and in that case the audience will have to stand as a show of respect.
The direction came a day after the Centre made a plea to the apex court to modify its November 30, 2016 order that made it mandatory for cinema halls to play the national anthem before screening of a film during which the audience was also required to stand. The order had sparked a nationwide debate.
The court, while emphasising that citizens were bound to show respect to the national anthem, said that a 12-member inter-ministerial committee, set up by the Centre, would take a final call on various aspects including playing of national anthem in cinema halls.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said that the committee should "comprehensively" look into all the aspects related to playing of national anthem in its entirety.
"The interim order passed on November 30, 2016 is modified that playing of national anthem prior to screening of film in a cinema hall is not mandatory as directed," the bench also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.
The top court, while disposing of the petitions pending before it, made it clear that the exemption granted earlier to disabled persons from standing in cinema halls when national anthem was being played, shall remain in force till the committee takes a decision.
The bench accepted the Centre's affidavit which said the 12-member panel has been set up to suggest changes in the 1971 Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.
Attorney General K K Venugopal told the court that the committee, which was set up through a notification on December 5 last year, will submit its report within six months.
The Centre in its affidavit yesterday said that an inter-ministerial committee has been set up as extensive consultations were needed for framing of guidelines describing the circumstances and occasions on which the national anthem is to be played or sung and observance of proper decorum on such occasions.
The government had said that the top court may "consider the restoration of status quo ante until then, that is restoration of the position as it stood before the order passed by this court on November 30, 2016" as it mandated the playing of the anthem in cinemas before a feature film starts.
During the hearing, the bench accepted the submissions of the Attorney General that petitioners before the court could make representations before the committee.
"When we say suggestion, the suggestion should only relate to national anthem," the bench said.
Regarding the playing of national anthem in cinema halls before screening of movies, Venugopal said that it should not be made mandatory until a final decision was taken by the committee and thereafter by the Central government.
The counsel appearing for petitioner Shyam Narayan Chouksey,
referred to various instances when due respect was allegedly not shown to national anthem and said that scope of provision related to it should be expanded.
"National anthem cannot be equated with any caste or religion. It is a tool for integration of the entire country.
Guidelines are existing but they cannot resolve the issue," the lawyer said and referred to an instance where some persons were manhandled inside a cinema hall in Mumbai after they had not stood up during playing of national anthem.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General told the bench that the committee was required to suggest changes in the 1971 Act and the panel comprises of representatives of various ministries.
Regarding disrespect shown to national anthem, Venugopal said such matters could be decided on a case to case basis.
Meanwhile, some petitioners raised the issue of Article 51 A (a) of the Constitution which say that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem.
Senior counsel Sajan Poovayya, representing another petitioner advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhaya, said that national anthem, national flag and national song were secular symbol representing nationhood and were required to be respected.
The bench, while referring to the provisions of the 1971 Act, said it was clear that no one can intentionally prevent playing of national anthem.
The court said that national anthem has to be accorded respect as a respect to salutation of motherland and a proper decorum has to be maintained when it is played.
It, however, said that list of occasions where national anthem should or should not be played cannot be stated.
The top court had in October last year observed that the people "cannot be forced to carry patriotism on their sleeves" and it cannot be assumed that if a person does not stand up for the national anthem, he or she is "less patriotic".
The apex court had on October 23 last year observed that people do not need to stand up in cinema halls to prove their patriotism and had asked the Centre to consider amending the rules for regulating playing of national anthem in theatres.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Oppn, X users flag concerns over US envoy Sergio Gor’s visit to Army’s western command
New Delhi: A visit by the US Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, to Chandigarh on Monday has triggered sharp criticism from opposition leaders and social media users, raising questions about national security and foreign policy.
On X, Ambassador Gor announced his visit, writing, “Just landed in Chandigarh. Looking forward to visiting the Western Command of the Indian Army.”
Just landed in Chandigarh. Looking forward to visiting the Western Command of the Indian Army
— Ambassador Sergio Gor (@USAmbIndia) February 16, 2026
Soon after, opposition voices questioned the broader implications of the visit. Congress Kerala, in a post, commented, “Why so much panic? We’ve already seen Pakistan's ISI getting access to Pathankot Airbase with this government's blessings. Didn't they say then ‘Modi ne kiya ho to kuch soch samajh kar kiya hoga?’ Compared to that, this is very small.”
Why so much panic? We’ve already seen Pakistan's ISI getting access to Pathankot Airbase with this government's blessings.
— Congress Kerala (@INCKerala) February 16, 2026
Didn't they say then "Modi ne kiya ho to kuch soch samajh kar kiya hoga?"
Compared to that, this is very small. pic.twitter.com/gNNuAGQBPC
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Priyanka Chaturvedi also weighed in, writing, “Since India’s national strategic interests are now tied to what US wants India to do, this visit seems to sync with that.”
She further added, “India’s history will remember the de-escalation announcement between India and Pak was announced on social media by the US President before Indians got to know from their own government. US Ambassador is doing the job for his nation, who is doing for us? The answer is blowing in the wind.”
Since India’s national strategic interests are now tied to what US wants India to do, this visit seems to sync with that. India’s history will remember the de-escalation announcement between India and Pak was announced on social media by the US President before Indians got to… pic.twitter.com/rYMq5NhJHA
— Priyanka Chaturvedi🇮🇳 (@priyankac19) February 16, 2026
The visit comes against the backdrop of the growing US-India defence partnership.
Writer and political analyst @rajuparulekar commented on ‘X’, “East India Company is back!”
“Is it allowed for an ambassador to visit any army unit in india?” asked another user.
Several X users expressed concerns over the appropriateness of the visit.
One asked, “Is it allowed for an ambassador to visit any army unit in India?” Another wrote, “Why an ambassador visiting our army places? To talk to Chandigarh lobby for F-35?”
Why an ambassador visiting our army places ? To talk to chandigarh lobby for f-35 ??
— Rohan Sagar (@RohanSagar03) February 16, 2026
“We have completely sold Indian sovereignty. Rothschild the evil Bankers will now control NSE. Modi sold Bharat Mata to Trump . And now American imperialist is visiting our army command . Scary,” wrote another user.
“The Indian Army isn’t part of geopolitics, so why is he interested in visiting there?,” opined another.
The Indian Army isn’t part of geopolitics, so why is he interested in visiting there?
— Aditya Pratap Singh (@Adi_IIMCIAN) February 16, 2026
On Sunday, Gor welcomed Admiral Samuel Paparo, Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), highlighting efforts to expand the growing US-India defence partnership.
In a post on X, Gor wrote, “Delighted to have @INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Samuel Paparo in India to expand the U.S.-India defense partnership. Now is the time to strengthen vital cooperation between our two nations.”
On Monday, Admiral Samuel J. Paparo Jr visited the headquarters of India’s Western Army Command along with the American envoy Sergio Gor. The delegation was briefed on the formation’s capabilities, its past operations, and future plans.
The American delegation also visited Bengaluru, where they met three start-ups, two in the space sector and one in defence, and participated in an Indo-US conference.
