Dear SC, when does the national anthem stop deserving a standing audience?

RELATED STORIES

1 of 6 Family thrown out of theatre for failing to stand during national anthem

2 of 6 A Mumbai family was harassed for not standing up during the National Anthem but what does the law says?

3 of 6 Uh Oh! PM Modi breaks protocol, walks past band during National Anthem

4 of 6 The very real dangers of sitting during the national anthem in Mumbai

5 of 6 National Anthem must be played in theatres before screening of films: Supreme Court

6 of 6 Stand up for the national anthem please: Going to a cinema to reinforce patriotism

A clarification that raises questions

While this latest observation does offer relief from Dangal-like shenanigans, it only raises a host of other, quite frankly, stupid, questions that the SC should also provide clarification on. Like when does the national anthem stop being a “symbol of constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality” deserving of our “respect”?

Based on the original ruling, the SC evidently believes that there is some sacred patriotic power that every movie venue is inherently imbued with. After all, why else would their decree pertain to just movies and nothing else, including courts, which they explicitly ruled needn't play the anthem. So what then makes the national anthem deserving of a standing audience before a movie, but not during?

Or is it the visual of the Indian flag that accompanies the anthem prior to the movie that elevates it to a “symbol of constitutional patriotism and inherent national quality.” Because an SC bench had observed that “love and respect for the motherland is reflected when one shows respect to the National Anthem as well as to the National Flag”. If so, does that mean the national anthem should be played endlessly everywhere the national flag is on display? And shouldn't everyone in the flag's vicinity be standing at attention as long as is necessary to sneak away between renditions?

...And more questions

If it isn't about the flag visual, and, dear God, let's hope it isn't, then is their logic that the standing rule is not applicable when just snippets of the national anthem are played during a movie? If so, should the audience stand to attention when a “film, newsreel or a documentary” plays the national anthem from the beginning, just in case the entire anthem is played, and sit only once it becomes apparent the entire anthem won't be played? Or should directors then be tasked with tacking on a disclaimer like the “smoking is injurious” one that tells the audience whether they need or needn't stand.

In fact, in its latest observation, the court doesn't seem to remember that it had also made the use of snippets of the national anthem illegal. Or is that not what it meant when it barred the playing of “abridged versions” of the anthem? If that is indeed what it meant, then is the usage of the national anthem, except in its full form, now illegal? And, if so, can someone please jail Aamir Khan?

Yes, all these questions seem trivial, if not outright daft. But with the original ruling and this most recent clarification, not to mention the government's own guidelines on training people with “Mild Intellectual Disability” to respect the anthem, who is to say what is ridiculous in this country anymore? The directives so far have clearly shown that common sense and discretion are relics of a bygone era. Now, Since the SC, which doubtless has far more important matters pending before it, seems so willing to discuss this absolutely pointless matter ad nauseam, are these questions any less deserving of their notice?