1. Writ petition raising constitutional questions regarding compulsory singing of national anthem. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 641
Supreme Court Of India
[CITED ORDER 1]
DR A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ
(Record of Proceedings)
RANGNATH MISRA -Petitioner;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 239 of 1998
Decided on April 9, 2001
The court referred the question of whether obliging all persons in an assembly to sing the national anthem is unconstitutional, and whether a prior precedent on the matter requires reconsideration, to a Constitution Bench.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Constitutionality of mandatory singing of national anthem - Whether legally obliging the singing of national anthem in an assembly by all those present in the assembly when the national anthem is sung is unconstitutional - Reconsideration of prior precedent on the same issue. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the legal obligation requiring all persons present in an assembly to sing the national anthem.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the issues raised are of significant importance and determined that they must be decided by a larger bench.
Issues: Whether the legal obligation to sing the national anthem in an assembly is unconstitutional and whether a prior judicial precedent regarding the same issue requires reconsideration.
Ratio Decidendi: Due to the constitutional nature of the questions and the necessity to potentially reconsider a prior judgment, the matter is required to be heard by a Constitution Bench. (Para 2)
Result: Writ petition referred to a Constitution Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether legally obliging singing of national anthem in an assembly is unconstitutional. (Para 1 )
3. Questions raised may require reconsideration of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. (Para 1 )
4. Writ petition referred to Constitution Bench for hearing at an early date. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Is legally obliging the singing of the national anthem in an assembly unconstitutional?
The court identified this as a question that may fall for decision, indicating it is a live constitutional issue requiring determination. (Para 1 )
6. Does the judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala require reconsideration?
The court noted this as another question that may fall for decision, suggesting potential re-examination of the precedent. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the C following questions may also fall for decision in the writ petition, besides other questions:
1. Whether legally obliging the singing of national anthem in an assembly by all those present in the assembly when the national anthem is sung is unconstitutional?
2. Does the judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala1 require d reconsideration?
2. The writ petition is, therefore, required to be heard by a Constitution Bench. We, accordingly, refer the writ petition to be heard by a Constitution Bench. Keeping in view the importance of the issues, it is desirable that the writ petition is heard at an early date.
3. Let the papers be placed before the Hooble Chief Justice for e constitution of the Bench.
Court Masters
