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.
LoP Ashoka accuses Karnataka govt of 'diverting' SC/ST funds for guarantees
Bengaluru (PTI): Leader of the Opposition in the Karnataka Assembly, R Ashoka, on Tuesday accused the state government of "diverting funds" meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the SCSP and TSP components to finance its guarantee schemes. He also alleged that the budget presented by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has undermined the principle of social justice.
During the discussion on the 2026–27 state budget in the assembly, the BJP leader claimed that substantial portions of funds earmarked for Dalit welfare had been diverted for other schemes over the past four years.
He also questioned the implementation of allocations under the Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan (SCSP) and Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP), saying the government has "failed" to ensure that the money actually reached the intended communities.
“Today, the money here has been diverted. In this diversion of funds, social justice has been ignored. If the money meant for Dalits is looted, can that be called social justice?” he asked while criticising the government’s handling of SC/ST allocations.
According to the opposition leader, around Rs 14,198 crore had been diverted in the current financial year alone from SCSP and TSP allocations to various guarantee schemes announced by the government.
Listing the expenditure under these programmes, the former Deputy CM said Rs 8,296.32 crore had been allocated for the Gruha Lakshmi scheme, Rs 1,537 crore for Shakti, Rs 1,612 crore for Anna Bhagya, Rs 2,591.6 crore for Gruha Jyothi and Rs 1,062 crore for Yuva Nidhi.
“In total, Rs 14,198 crore has been diverted this year,” he said.
He further claimed that the diversion of funds had increased over the years.
“In 2023–24, Rs 11,144 crore was taken from SC/ST funds. In 2024–25, Rs 14,282.68 crore was taken. In 2025–26, Rs 13,343.84 crore was taken. In 2026–27, Rs 14,198.97 crore has been taken.”
“This amount keeps increasing year after year. In total, Rs 53,059.45 crore belonging to SC/ST communities has been taken during Siddaramaiah’s tenure,” he added.
Ashoka said that although the budget documents projected large allocations for Dalit welfare, the actual funds reaching the beneficiaries were significantly lower.
The government had earmarked Rs 44,632 crore for SC/ST communities in 2026–27, but once the diversion towards guarantee schemes was removed, the effective amount available was much less, he added.
The BJP leader also referred to a review meeting on January 31 to examine the utilisation of SCSP and TSP funds.
As per the review, Ashoka said only a part of the sanctioned amount had actually been released and spent.
“For SCSP, Rs 29,872 crore was allocated, but by January 27, only Rs 16,699 crore had been released, and the expenditure was Rs 15,391 crore."
Similarly, under the Tribal Sub-Plan, he alleged that Rs 11,900 crore had been allocated, but only Rs 6,521 crore was released and Rs 6,002 crore spent by the end of January.
“Even after eleven months, only about 50 per cent of the funds were released by the Finance department.”
Ashoka also criticised the allocation of SC/ST funds to departments and schemes that he said had little direct relevance to the welfare of those communities.
These included wildlife conservation programmes in the forest department, the tiger conservation project, maintenance of hospital buildings, and IT policy formulation.
“How are Dalits related to wildlife conservation? Are there SC tigers and ST elephants? How can funds meant for Dalits be used for tiger conservation?” he asked.
He also objected to funds being allocated from SC/ST components to institutions such as the Sanjay Gandhi Trauma and Orthopaedic Institute in Bengaluru and for Public Works Department buildings.
The opposition leader also charged that the government hiked taxes and prices of various commodities and services ranging from milk to petrol, vehicles, drinking water, sewerage cess, electricity, metro rail and bus fare, school and college fees, property taxes in Bengaluru, property e-Khata fee, A-Khata conversion, exam fee and birth and death certificate issuance.
“People are being taxed for digging cellar. The mines and geology department has issued notices to people. This is unheard of for me,” Ashoka said.
