The idea that one should respect national symbols was always there in social customs as well as in statutes.
The courts did not invent National anthem.
When the people refused to respect the thing that they must give respect, the courts just interpreted law.
The argument that the courts should not interpret the issue is not right. If we continue to extend or stretch that argument many more serious laws like that on murder and manslaughter, taxation, property rights, and even the sovereignty of the country can be challenged on the pretext that enforceability of the law and interpretation of the court would interfere with the sanctity of the principle of liberty.
We should remember that the courts intervened because people transgressed the sanctity already.
Civil disobedience and even flouting of law might become a weapon to guard individual liberty in certain grave circumstances.
But a directive by the Apex Court that National Anthem should be respected cannot be such a situation where civil disobedience is called for.
Yes, protocols grow around many practices and such protocols are sacrosanct.
A uniformed officer always salutes his senior. If the argument is that this would make inroads into the sanctity of the relation between the officer and the subordinate, I have very little to say..
No comments:
Post a Comment