2017 INSC 0171
                                   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                        Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

                                                      Vs.

                                               Union of India

                                          WP(Civil)No. 98/2017

               (Dipak Misra,J., R.Banumathi and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar,JJ.,)

                                                 17.02.2017

                                                  ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Vikash Singh, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Asha Upadhyay, learned
counsel for the petitioner.

2. In the present writ petition, prayer (a) is to the following effect :-

        "a) frame a National Policy to promote and propagate the National Antehm, National
        Song and National Flag in spirit of the Article 51A to achieve the great golden goals,
        as set out in Preamble of the Constitution of India." Mr. Vikas Singh, learned
        senior counsel submitted that it is similar to Writ Petition no.855 of 2016. On a
        perusal of the order passed therein, we do not find that it relates in entirety to prayer
        (a), for our earlier order does not relate to 'National Song' or 'National Flag'.
        Be it clearly noted, Article 51A(a) of the Constitution of India does not refer to
        'National Song'. It only refers to National Flag and National
        Anthem. The said Article reads as follows :

        "51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India.-- (a) to abide
        by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and the
        National Anthem."

        Therefore, we do not intend to enter into any debate as far as the National Song is
        concerned.

        As far as prayer (d) is concerned, it reads as follows :-
        "d) ascertain the feasibility of singing / playing the National Anthem and National
        Song in the Parliament/Assembly, Public Officers, Courts and Schools on every
        working day."

1  SpotLaw
3. In the earlier writ petition, a contention was advanced by the learned Attorney General for
India pertaining to schools and, therefore, as far as the prayer relating to 'schools on every
working day' is concerned, it is kept alive. The rest of the prayer, i.e., of prayer (d) is
dismissed as not pressed. We may hasten to clarify, when we have kept the prayer alive, that
does not mean that we have expressed any opinion on the same.

4. Let the matter be tagged with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 855 of 2016. A copy of the petition
be handed over to Ms. Binu Tamta, learned counsel who shall apprise the learned Attorney
General for India that we have tagged this matter with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 855 of 2016.

2  SpotLaw