The Aryavarth Express
Agency (Bengaluru): The Karnataka High Court, under Justice Krishna S Dixit, has dismissed a petition that contested the State government’s directive on singing the State Anthem, “Jayabharatha Jananiya Thanujathe,” in a specific tune composed by Mysore Ananthaswamy. The petition argued that this directive should not enforce a uniform tune for the anthem’s performance.
The court decision reiterated that the government possesses the executive power to specify such requirements, especially when they do not infringe upon individual rights. This ruling comes alongside a revised order from the state government, which limits the anthem’s mandated performance to state-aided schools and official state functions, thereby not imposing it universally on all citizens.
During the proceedings, Justice Dixit highlighted international practices and previous Indian Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that while singing the anthem is encouraged as a form of respect, individuals are not compelled to sing but must show respect in other ways, such as standing. This aligns with the principle that the right to sing is part of free speech, including the choice to remain silent.
The contention focused on the appropriateness of prescribing a musical raga for the anthem. The court noted that the expertise of the composer justified the prescription and that such a directive does not violate any constitutional rights. The judgement also underscored the importance of the state anthem, equating its civic significance to that of the national anthem.
This case stems from a disagreement over the tune adjustments made over the years, with various committees recommending different tunes by composers C Ashwath and Mysore Ananthaswamy, reflecting ongoing cultural stewardship and legal considerations in preserving state symbols. The petitioner had preferred the earlier tune by C Ashwath but was ultimately overridden by newer governmental decisions, leading to this legal challenge. The court’s dismissal of the petition affirms the state’s role in defining cultural expressions within legal and constitutional bounds.
