Can court order induce patriotism?

The recent order of the Madras High Court (MHC) making the singing of Vande Mataram mandatory in schools, government offices, private entities and industries in Tamil Nadu is a case in point. 

The case pertains to a teaching aspirant, K Veeramani, failing the test for the post of BT assistant, as he had answered that Vande Mataram was written in Bengali and not Sanskrit. However, the Court, while conceding that the answer given by the petitioner was correct, went one step further and made singing of Vande Mataram mandatory in schools, universities and corporate firms. 

The ruling comes at a time when a Supreme Court order made it mandatory for theatre-goers to stand up for the National Anthem, before they can watch a movie, which has drawn severe criticism. Many point out that such orders come from a flawed concept that patriotism can be induced by force and through some ritualistic singing of a song. 

Change India, director, A Narayanan, said, “The whole concept of nationalism is utterly misplaced by believing that the singing of a song can imbibe it when the need of the hour is making people aware of their duties and rights. The focus ought to be on ensuring that the students are aware of the Constitution and not merely sing a song that the judge believes can imbibe nationalism and patriotism among citizens.” 

However, some others view the order as a good step. Advocate A P Suryprakasam said, “When the administration and politicians fail, the judiciary has no choice but to step in, to protect and implement the law. Moreover, the government can pass umpteen number of orders. But most of it either lacks teeth nor are they properly enforced. But with specific directions from the court, the law gets more effective. Experience has taught us that unless people are ordered to follow, nothing works.” 

Suo motu cases and Public Interest Litigations (PILs), have come in handy for the judiciary to intervene in public issues, even when there is no complaint from the concerned party. At one stage, judicial activism meant a more active role by the judiciary in augmenting social justice and enforcing fundamental rights. But now, the individual opinion of a judge has come to be thrust upon the people, narrowing down the fine demarcation between judicial activism and judicial overreach. Another order, which drew wide spread criticism was the introduction of a dress code to those visiting temples. Though the plea pertained to holding a Gramiya Adal Padal Vizha, (musical dance programme) at a temple in Akkiyampatti village in Tiruchy district, MHC ordered that police should ensure a dress code for people entering temples —dhoti and shirt or pyjama “with upper cloth” for men and saree or half-saree or churidar “with upper cloth” for women. Children can wear “any fully covered dress”.

The order was subsequently struck down by a division bench after holding that, “Courts are not expected to adjudicate any matter academically in the absence of any real lis between parties. Courts are not entitled to create a controversy and adjudicate upon the same. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the directions issued by the single judge and we are constrained to set aside the same and reserve it for an occasion, when a real litigation comes before us.” Judicial activism has no Constitutional articles to support its origin.