2005 Supreme(SC) 842

2005(4) Supreme 149
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.
Sanjeev Bhatnagar —Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 16 of 2005
Decided on 13-5-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Milon K. Banerji, Attorney General for India, A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, M.R. Calla, Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocates, Amit Anand Tiwari, Samir Ali Khan, Amit Kumar, Navin Prakash, Gaurav Aggarwal, Dewashish Bharuka, Mrs. Sushma Suri, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, R.L. Panjwani, Ms. P.R. Mala, Mushtaq Ahmad, Vijay Panjwani, Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, R.N. Keshwani, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Advocates.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 32—Writ petition in public interest seeking a direction to Union of India to rectify text of National Anthem and delete the word “Sindh” therefrom—Petition was based on plea that geographical region “Sindh” was part of India pre-partition and being now not part of India use of the word was misplaced—National Anthem was a hymn expressing patriotic sentiments and not a chronicle defining territory of the nation—Poem was a reflection of the real India as a country—A confluence of many religions, races, communities and geographical entities and was a message of unity in diversity—Petition did not appear raising any constitutional issue or canvassing any fundamental right—Petition was not in public interest and was more of publicity interest and deserved to be dismissed with costs.

       Held : The main plank of the petitioner’s case is that the geographical region known as ‘Sindh’, was a part of India pre-partition (i.e. before 15th August, 1947) and ever since then it is not a part of India, and therefore, the use of the word ‘Sindh’ in the National Anthem is misplaced and deserves to be deleted for which an appropriate direction needs to be issued to the Union of India. In our opinion, the submission is misconceived for very many reasons which we proceed to summarize herein below. A National Anthem is a hymn or song expressing patriotic sentiments or feelings. It is not a chronicle which defines the territory of the nation which has adopted the anthem. A few things such as – a National Flag, a National Song, a National Emblem and so on, are symbolic of our national honour and heritage. The National Anthem did not, and does not, enlist the states or regional areas which were part of India at the point of time when it was written. Nor is it necessary that the structure of the National Anthem should go on changing as and when the territories or the internal distribution of geographical regions and provinces undergoes changes. Very recently Uttaranchal, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand have been carved out by reorganizing certain states. Does it mean that the National Anthem should be enlarged, re-written or modified to include the names of these new states? The obvious answer is - no. The National Anthem is our patriotic salutation to our motherland, nestling between the Himalyas and the oceans and the seas surrounding her. The mention of a few names therein is symbolic of our recollection of the glorious heritage of India. ‘Sindh’ is not just a geographical region. It refers to the place and to its people. Sindhis are spread throughout the country and they derive their such name as having originated and migrated from Sindh. ‘Sindh’ also refers to the river ‘Sindhu’ or ‘Indus’. It also refers to a culture, one of the oldest in the world and even modern India feels proud of its having inherited the Indus Valley Civilisation as an inalienable part of its heritage. River Indus (Sindhu) finds numerous references in the Indian Classical Literature including Rig Veda. The National Anthem is the poem as it was written by Rabindranath Tagore. He himself had said that the five stanzas in which the poem was written is addressed to God. The poem is a reflection of the real India as a country — a confluence of many religions, races, communities and geographical entities. It is a message of unity in diversity. It is a patriotic song. It has since the decades inspired many by arousing their patriotic sentiments when sung in rhythm. It is the representative of the ethos of the country. Any classic, once created, becomes immortal and inalienable; even its creator may not feel like making any change in it. Any tampering with the script of the poem would be showing disrespect to the great poet — Rabindranath Tagore. The huge and cry raised by the petitioner in his petition and also during the hearing at the Bar does not amount to raising any constitutional issue or canvassing any fundamental right for the enforcement of which the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution can be invoked. The issue is puerile. (Paras 10 to 13)

       Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned senior counsel leading the intervenors, severely criticized the conduct of the petitioner who has mentioned in the writ petition that the continued use of the word ‘Sindh’ in the National Anthem offends patriotic sentiments of the citizens of India and is offensive of sovereignty of the neighbouring country. He goes on to allege that the sentiments of 100 crore Indians can be soothened by correcting and updating the “National Anthem”. The learned senior counsel posed the questions - Whose cause the petitioner is pleading — of the citizens of India or of a neighbouring country? Wherefrom does the petitioner gather an impression and plead that he is espousing the cause of more than one billion people of India? The learned senior counsel was at pains to point out that ever since this petition was filed in the Court and notice was directed to be issued the Indian newspapers have been flooded with editorials and hundreds of ‘letters to the editor’ highlighting the sentiments of the people of India, and in particular of Sindhis who have felt hurt by the move of the petitioner. There are several oppositions filed in the Court. There is not even one who may have spoken in support of the petitioner. We find merit in the submissions made by the learned Attorney General for India and Mr. Ram Jethmalani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors, and agree with the same. We are satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for. The petition is wholly devoid of any merit. The petition is not in public interest. It is a petition which should never have been filed. It is more of the publicity interest litigation wherein the petitioner seems to have achieved his purpose. To discourage the filing of such like petitions which result only in wasting the valuable time of this Court, we direct the petition to be dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 15 to 17)