Singing the Anthem in a Specific Tune: Legal Battle in Karnataka.
24 April 2024
Constitutional & Government >> Constitution & Law Procedure | Education >> Miscellaneous
A Karnataka singer's petition challenging a government order mandating a specific tune for the state anthem has been dismissed by the High Court. The order required singing "Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate" in a composition by Mysore Ananthaswamy.
Petitioner's Argument: Freedom of Expression Curtailed?
The singer, arguing against the Government Order (GO), claimed it violated their right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They felt restricted in choosing their preferred tune for singing the anthem. Additionally, they challenged the legality of the order, arguing there was no law requiring a specific tune.
Government Counters: Education, Patriotism, and Legal Backing
The government countered these arguments. They clarified that the GO doesn't restrict where or how the singer can sing the anthem, only in designated spaces like schools and government offices. In schools, the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, grants the government the power to regulate education, encompassing prescribing the anthem and its tune.
For government offices, the government cited Article 162 of the Constitution, which empowers the state's executive power. They argued that singing the anthem in a uniform tune fostered patriotism and national pride.
Court's Decision: Balancing Freedom and Regulation
The court, in its judgement, dismissed the petition. They acknowledged the singer's right to choose a tune, but highlighted it applied only in specific spaces. The court validated the government's arguments regarding the Education Act's power to regulate education in schools, including prescribing the anthem and tune.
Similarly, Article 162's provision for executive power was deemed sufficient to mandate a tune in government offices. Finally, the court upheld the government's position that singing the anthem in a specific tune within designated spaces served a reasonable purpose – promoting patriotism and national pride.
Key Takeaway: Freedom with Responsibility
This case underscores the balance between individual freedom and government regulation. While the court protects the right to sing the anthem freely, it acknowledges the government's authority to regulate its rendition in specific spaces for educational and patriotic reasons.