New Delhi: Values are inculcated in various ways but not by mandates of courts, the Supreme Court said on Monday, hinting at recalling its 2016 order which made it compulsory for movie halls to play the national anthem and for people to stand to show respect to it as part of their "sacred obligation".

The court further observed that it is not required of an individual to wear patriotism on their sleeve all the time, and that not playing the national anthem in cinema halls won't make people anti-national.

Eleven months after its November 30, 2016 order, a three-judge bench has wondered why the court had to pass such an order when the central government was competent to regulate the playing of the national anthem.

Questioning its own order, the three-judge bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, observed that the court was inclined to do away with the mandatory direction, leaving the discretion with the cinema halls to decide.

"Or you bring a regulation," the bench told Attorney General KK Venugopal who appeared for the Centre.

Venugopal had opposed a bunch of applications seeking recall of the 2016 order. The A-G argued that national anthem is a unifying factor in a country with diversity such as India and that the court order was without blemish.

But the bench, and Justice Chandrachud in particular, questioned why the government was not coming up with appropriate circulars in this regard when it deemed the issue of national anthem so important.

"Why don't you do it? You bring amendments to the Flag Code and other relevant statutes if you want this," Justice Chandrachud told Venugopal, pointing out that there is not even a direction to stand up when the nation anthem is played and the law only required people not to obstruct its singing.

"What's stopping the government from amending the law and making it mandatory," asked Justice Chandrachud, adding that the situation is "absurd" at times when the national anthem is played before the start of an international cricket match and half the crowd doesn't have a clue what is being sung.

"Why do we have to wear patriotism up our sleeves all the time? Cinema halls are places of entertainment after all. As the government, you have the power. Why do you have to throw the burden to this court? Why is there a reservation on your part to do it?"

Justice Chandrachud remarked that next there could be objections to the kinds of clothes worn by people when they sing national anthem in movie halls.

"Where do we draw the line on moral policing? People go to theatres for undiluted entertainment. Society needs entertainment. As the government, tomorrow you may have regulations for the national anthem at various places of entertainment. So be it. You do it, but don't ask us to do it," he added.

Justice Chandrachud also echoed the feeling of the common man of being branded as anti-national if one chooses to oppose the compulsory direction to sing the anthem.

"But I don't need to sing the national anthem to prove my patriotism. Why should I be asked in a cinema hall to sing it to show my patriotism?" he said.

The A-G said it is necessary to inculcate certain national values, but the judge countered him, saying: "Values are inculcated in various ways, but not by mandates of courts. There is a problem when you want the court to do it."

The court then adjourned the matter to January 9, asking the A-G to revert with instructions on whether the government is willing to issue regulations on the subject.