ORDER : (Krishna S. Dixit, J.) Petitioner, an acclaimed singer, is complaining before the Writ Court against the Government Order dated 25.09.2022 at Annexure-A whereby, the State Government has directed the rendition of the State Anthem 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate' in a specific tune/raaga as composed by late Sri. Mysore Ananthaswamy, a singer of great repute, in yester decades. The operative portion of the said order is as under: VERNACULAR MATTER 2. The gist of submission of learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the petitioner is as under: (i) The impugned order constitutes an unreasonable clog/restriction on the right to expression which has been constitutionally guaranteed u/a 19(1)(a) to the citizens. (ii) Asking citizens to sing a song in a particular tune/raaga is constitutionally impermissible unless it is authorized by law i.e., legislation, and therefore, in exercise of executive power, such an imperative cannot be levied. (iii) Citizens are free to sing any song in any tune/raaga, especially when the author of the said song namely Kuvempu himself had never prescribed any particular tune/raaga, proscribing all other. (iv) Merely because a Committee constituted for the purpose has recommended a particular tune/raaga in which Naadageethe needs to be sung, the impugned order does not get validated. In support of this submission, he pressed into service certain Rulings. 3. After service of notice, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. S.A.Ahmed appearing for the official respondents has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the petition. A private entity got impleaded as the 4th respondent and its learned counsel Mr. H.Sunil Kumar has filed a separate Statement of Objections. Learned AAG appearing for the State and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. C.H.Hanumantharaya appearing for the private respondent made vehement submissions in justification of the impugned order. 4. This matter was taken up for hearing on a few occasions. Stalwarts from the field of music namely Smt. B.K.Sumithra, Sri. B.R.Lakshman Rao, Sri. Y.K.Muddukrishna & Sri. Mrunthunjaya Doddawad personally appeared and gracefully assisted the court with zeal & zest in the hearing of this matter of seminal importance, though they are not parties eo nomine. They made submission in justification of prescription of particular tune/raaga as composed by Sri. Mysore Ananthaswamy. Such great gestures, nowadays are marked by their rarity. B.R.Lakshman Rao, Sri. Y.K.Muddukrishna & Sri. Mrunthunjaya Doddawad personally appeared and gracefully assisted the court with zeal & zest in the hearing of this matter of seminal importance, though they are not parties eo nomine. They made submission in justification of prescription of particular tune/raaga as composed by Sri. Mysore Ananthaswamy. Such great gestures, nowadays are marked by their rarity. When the hearing was half a through, learned AAG has placed on record the Corrigendum dated 21.02.2024 vide Memo dated 16.04.2024, which reads as under: VERNACULAR MATTER 5. Learned AAG Mr. S.A.Ahmed and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. C.H.Hanumantharaya took up the following contentions for opposing the petition: (i) Petition in its present form & substance is not maintainable. Petitioner has not demonstrated as to which right of his has been breached by the impugned order. (ii) The State has prescribed a particular tune/raaga for rendering Naadageethe after duly considering the unanimous report of Expert Committee and therefore, it is not that the impugned prescription has fallen abruptly as a bolt from the blue. (iii) In schools, naadageethe needs to be sung in the prescribed tune/raaga so that uniformity is brought amongst the students; similarly, for obvious reasons, singing of this song is made compulsory in government departments and governmental bodies that too only on official occasions. (iv) No individual right of the petitioner has been infringed by the prescription of tune/raaga for singing naadageethe inasmuch as it is always open to citizens to sing the said song in any tune/raaga of their choice. No citizen has a right to insist that he be allowed to sing Naadageethe in schools, government departments and governmental bodies. (v) The government has power to issue the impugned order in exercise of power availing under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983; even otherwise, it has executive power vested u/a 162 of the Constitution. They bank upon certain rulings in support of their stand. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: A. Kaviratna Kuvempu And Our Heritage: A few words needs to be stated about the author of our Naadageethe: Sri. Kuppalli Venkatappa Puttappa (1904-1994), popularly known as 'Kuvempu' was a most popular poet, playwright, novelist and literary critic of great repute. His magnum opus "Sri. Kuppalli Venkatappa Puttappa (1904-1994), popularly known as 'Kuvempu' was a most popular poet, playwright, novelist and literary critic of great repute. His magnum opus "Sri. Ramayana Darshanam" a profound epic, secured to him the prestigious Jnanapeetha Award in 1968. He happened to be the first such awardee from the State. For his invaluable contribution to Kannada language & literature, the Government of Karnataka decorated him with the honorific Raashtrakavi ('National Poet') in 1964. He was bestowed with the highest civilian award in the State namely, 'Karnataka Ratna' ('Gem of Karnataka') in 1992. The Government of India in 1988, honoured him with 'Padma Vibhushana', the second highest civilian award. 'Kuvempu' is a by-word in Kannada prose & poetry; that very name thrills every Kannadiga worth his salt. It is Kuvempu who penned 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Tanujate' in 1930 which the Government of Karnataka adopted as the State Anthem on 29.12.2003. This song being immensely emotive, vividly picturizes with beauty the land, mountains, rivers, forests, faiths/religions, cultures, saints/sages, poets, singers/musicians and dynasties of Karnataka, in the bygone era. B. The bone of contention between the parties is not the singing of Naadageethe per se, but the tune/raaga in which it is directed to be sung in schools regularly and in governmental bodies during occasions. It is the specific case of petitioner that the impugned order has been issued without competence and in the absence of statutory backing. This contention is difficult to countenance inasmuch as, the impugned order does not come in his way of singing Nadageethe in any tune/raaga of his choice. Despite vociferous submissions, petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate his right to sing in qualified spaces like schools and governmental bodies the State Anthem i.e., Naadageethe in a raaga composed by Late C Ashwath or such other stalwarts, in variance with the one specified. It is not that petitioner's minor children are studying in any schools and they are compelled to sing Naadageethe, much less in specified raaga; thus, he is not espousing their cause. It is relevant to mention that in the light of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615 , arguably no child can be compelled to sing the Anthem, provided that it shows respect. No school has come forward to challenge the impugned order and this is appreciable indeed. Rightly, petitioner is not espousing the cause of any school, either. No school has come forward to challenge the impugned order and this is appreciable indeed. Rightly, petitioner is not espousing the cause of any school, either. That being the position, the impugned orders do not give a choate cause of action for maintaining this petition. C. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashok Harnahalli appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the impugned order is incompetent in the absence of any statutory power being indicated. Learned AAG Mr. S A Ahmed appearing for the official respondents is right in submitting that the court need not examine this question in the absence of any legal injury being demonstrated by the petitioner by virtue of impugned orders. As already observed above, since the impugned orders do not impinge on the rights of petitioner to sing Naadageethe in any raaga of his choice anywhere and at any time except in qualified spaces, he is not an "aggrieved person". Secondly, the power to prescribe State Anthem and to specify raaga in which it is to be rendered in schools, broadly avails to the State Government under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 which reads as under: "The State Government may, subject to subsection (3) of Section 1, regulate general education, professional education, medical education, technical education, commerce education and special education at all levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act." The power to regulate general education necessarily includes the power to do all that, that is necessary therefor and incidental thereto. It cannot be gainfully argued that this power does not include the authority to prescribe State Anthem and specify raaga in which it is to be sung in schools. Although the impugned order and the corrigendum dated 21.02.2024 issued during the pendency of the petition do not mention the provision of law, they can be construed as having been issued under Section 3(1) of the 1983 Act and a set of rules promulgated thereunder. D. So far as the prescription of singing State Anthem in a specified raga (composed by Mysuru Ananthaswamy) in government offices and governmental bodies is concerned, the provisions of 1983 Act do not come to the rescue of the respondents, is true. However, learned AAG Mr. D. So far as the prescription of singing State Anthem in a specified raga (composed by Mysuru Ananthaswamy) in government offices and governmental bodies is concerned, the provisions of 1983 Act do not come to the rescue of the respondents, is true. However, learned AAG Mr. Ahmed is right in telling that such prescription as has been done vide impugned orders is permissible in the exercise of executive power of the State availing under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, as widely interpreted in Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State Of Punjab, (1955) 2 SCR 225 , wherein it is observed as under: ".... Ordinarily, the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions which remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away. And yet, when such action affects the rights of a citizen or any person, the authority of law would be required." Mr. H M Seervai in Constitutional Law of India, Fourth Edition, at paragraph No.22.384 writes as follows: "In Naraindas v. MP, (1974) 3 SCR 624 the Sup. Ct. held that under Article 162 the executive power of the State was co-extensive, with its legislative power under entry 11, List II (education). Therefore in the exercise of that power the State could prescribe school textbooks without the authority of law, as it did not affect the rights of publishers even before Section 4 was enacted." On the same analogy, the occupational rights of petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) are not infringed even in the least. It hardly needs to be stated that the field of education figures in the Concurrent List vide Item No.25 and that the scope of executive power is co-extensive with legislative power. E. It is not that the subject orders are universal in their application in the sense that everyone, everywhere and at every time, if desires to sing this song, has to do it in the specified tune/raaga. Their operation is confined to 'qualified spaces' namely, schools, government departments and governmental bodies. Thus, they do not extend to any other spaces/places. It is not that the petitioner has got any right to go to these specified entities for singing the State Anthem, regardless of the specified raaga. He may arguably have a right to visit the school or government offices for working out his grievances if any, in accordance with law. Thus, they do not extend to any other spaces/places. It is not that the petitioner has got any right to go to these specified entities for singing the State Anthem, regardless of the specified raaga. He may arguably have a right to visit the school or government offices for working out his grievances if any, in accordance with law. However, that does not give him the right to sing the Anthem during the visit. In other words, no right of the petitioner much less his fundamental right to speech and expression constitutionally guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) or his occupational rights secured under Article 19(1)(g) can be said to have been infringed even going by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, his contention that the impugned order constitutes an unreasonable restriction, does not merit acceptance. The question of adjudging reasonableness of restriction does arise only when the substantive right and its curtailment are demonstrated. However, such demonstration is lacking in this case. F. In all justification, Naadageethe needs to be sung in the schools on daily basis before any curricular/non- curricular activity commences. Similarly, in government offices and governmental bodies too, the singing of Naadageethe is made imperative although not on regular basis but on official occasions/functions. This arrangement cannot be said to be unreasonable when adjudged by any standards obtaining in the contemporary constitutional jurisprudence. Singing the National Anthem facing the National Flag in qualified spaces like the schools and public offices is necessary to teach students and citizens patriotism and respect for the country. The same purpose is achieved by making the singing of Naadageethe imperative. It generates love for the State, for its people, for plurality of religions/faiths, cultures, rivers, forests, mountains, etc., that are beautifully depicted in the subject song. Since 2000, Japanese Courts have affirmed school administrators' power to order even teachers to sing National Anthem and to discipline them for refusing to sing. Shino v. Otsu Kyoikuiinkat, 1087 Hanrei Taimuzu 117 (Otsu D. Ct., May 7, 2002). If singing the National Anthem Jana Gana Mana in a particular tune is imperative, drawing analogy from the same one can without the risk of contradiction state that singing the State Anthem in a specified raaga cannot be faltered. G. Learned AAG Mr. Shino v. Otsu Kyoikuiinkat, 1087 Hanrei Taimuzu 117 (Otsu D. Ct., May 7, 2002). If singing the National Anthem Jana Gana Mana in a particular tune is imperative, drawing analogy from the same one can without the risk of contradiction state that singing the State Anthem in a specified raaga cannot be faltered. G. Learned AAG Mr. Ahmed in his inimitable style submitted and this court agrees with the same that the prescription of particular raaga for singing the State Anthem is preceded by a study by a High Level Committee comprising of experts in the field. The said Committee was constituted by the Government by an official order dated 09.09.2021. The Committee was headed by Dr. Siddalingaiah. There were six members viz (i) Sri. K R Ramakrishna, the Commissioner, the Department of Kannada, (ii) Sri. Y K Muddukrishna, (iii) Sri. Muddumohan, (iv) Smt. Vaijayanthi Kashi who was heading Karnataka Sngeetha - Nrutya Academy, (v) Sri. Balavanthrao Patil, Joint Director, Department of Kannada & Culture and (vi) Smt. Y S Vijayalakshmi, Programme Officer Department of Kannada & Culture. There were two great poets namely, Dr. Channaveera Kanavi of Dharwad and Dr. Doddarangegowda of Bengaluru. The composition of Committee later was changed with the inclusion of some other members after deleting their counter parts. The Committee after deliberation had submitted reports. The Government having looked into the same, has come out with the impugned order followed by the subject corrigendum. Therefore, the argument that the action of the Government in prescribing a particular raaga/tune for the singing of State Anthem is arbitrary and unreasonable, is liable to be rejected, to say the least. The subject raaga/tune is being followed for about two decades or so, with no complaint from the concerned quarters, also cannot be overlooked while deciding the lis brought before the court. In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.