Karnataka HC upholds that signing Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate the State anthem in a particular tune will not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a) and (1)(g)
Case title: Kikkeri Krishna Murthy and the State of Karnataka and Ors.
Case no: Writ petition No. 19801 of 2022
Dated on: 24th April, 2024
Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Dixit
Facts of the case: petitioner is a well- known singer who has filed a complaint before the court by filing a writ petition against the State Govt of Karnataka order dated on 25.09.2022 whereby the State Government had directed the rendition of the State anthem ‘Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate’ in a specific tune or raaga that was composed by Shri. Mysore Ananthaswamy .
Contentions of the appellant:
The impugned order constitutes an unreasonable restriction onto right to expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution, asking citizens to sing a song in a particular tune or raaga is constitutionally impermissible unless it is authorized by law. There is no restrictions for citizens prescribed to sing any particular tune or raaga. Just because, a committee had recommended a particular tune or raaga in which the Naadageethe needs to be sung the impugned order does not get validated.
Contentions of the respondent:
Petitioner has not mentioned as to which right of his has been infringed by the impugned order. After, taking the unanimous report of the committee into consideration the State has prescribed a particular tune or raaga for rendering the naadageethe. In schools, Naadageethe has to be sung in a certain manner in order to maintain uniformity amongst the students; Similarly, in offices or Governmental bodies it’s made compulsory to sing in official occasions only. It is always open to citizens the said song in any tune or raaga of their choice. Under, the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Govt has power to issue the impugned order which otherwise also has executive power that is vested under Article162 of the Indian Constitution.
Legal provisions:
Section 3(1) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983- generates general education, professional education, medical education, technical education at all levels in accordance with provisions of the act.
Article 19(1) (a) and 19 (1) (g)- guarantees its citizens the freedom of speech and expression. Also, grants its citizens the freedom to practice any profession or trade or business of his/her choice.
Article 162- extent of executive power of the state.
Issue:
Whether the action of the State Govt in prescribing a particular raaga or tune for the State anthem is arbitrary and unreasonable?
Court analysis and judgement:
The impugned order does not come in his way of singing the naadageethe in his tune or raaga . Despite the vehement submissions the petitioner isn’t in a position to demonstrate his right to sing in qualified spaces like schools, governmental bodies that is composed by other stalwarts in the variance once specified. Since, the impugned order does not infringe any right of the petitioner to sing naadageethe in any raaga anywhere anytime except in certain qualified places; he is not an “aggrieved person”. No school has come forward to challenge the order and the petitioner is not supporting cause of any school and hence the impugned order does not give a proper cause of action in maintaining the petition. Permission of singing the national anthem in any specified raaga is permissible under Article 162 of the constitution. In, Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur V. State of Punjab (1955) 2 SCR 225 it was observed that when there is an residue of government function that remains after legislative and judicial function are taken away that is when the executive powers come into actions, and if such action effects rights of citizen the authority of law would be required. The contention of petitioner that his right to speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) has been infringed by imposing unreasonable restrictions does not merit acceptance. The question of adjudging reasonable restrictions arises when the substantive right and curtailment is demonstrated. However, such demonstration lacks in the case. As, the petition is devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.
Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.