SC on Refusal to Sing Vande Mataram
The Supreme Court has told the government that people who refuse to sing Vande Mataram on grounds of conscience should not face penal consequences. The court referred to its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, which protected schoolchildren who respectfully declined to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna challenging provisions linked to the mandatory singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram.
The bench sought the government’s response to the petition and indicated that the principle laid down in the 1986 judgment should continue to guide the amended law. Justice Bagchi said the court would expect the law as declared in the Bijoe Emmanuel case to govern the amended legislation.
Court Says State Can Decide National Song Rules
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that it was for the democratic state to decide what constitutes the national song and whether two, four or six stanzas should be sung.
At the same time, the court highlighted the constitutional concerns surrounding conscientious objections. It said a person who believes that singing the song infringes rights under Articles 25 and 26, or who is a conscientious objector, should not face penal consequences.
The court clarified that it was not examining what should constitute the national song or questioning the national sentiments associated with Vande Mataram.
What Is the Vande Mataram Case?
TM Krishna’s petition challenges Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as amended in 2026, along with Home Ministry orders dated January 28 and July 9.
The amended provision provides for imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both for anyone who intentionally prevents the singing of the national anthem or national song, or causes disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
Krishna’s counsel, senior advocate S Muralidhar, argued that the amendment does not define the expression “national song”, creating uncertainty over which version or stanzas of Vande Mataram are covered.
He also challenged the Home Ministry’s directions requiring all six stanzas to be sung, arguing that the directions were issued through an office memorandum that had not been gazetted.
Debate Over Six Stanzas
During the hearing, the petitioner’s side argued that the established understanding of Vande Mataram as the national song traditionally relates to its first two stanzas.
Krishna’s petition raises broader constitutional questions concerning freedom of speech and expression, freedom of conscience, equality, religious freedom and secularism.
The petition also challenges the requirement that the complete six-stanza version be treated as the official version of the national song and that Vande Mataram precede the national anthem when both are sung or played.
Sharp Exchange Between Lawyers
The hearing also witnessed a sharp exchange between Muralidhar and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
Mehta opposed the petition and argued that “secularism cannot be this narrow”. At another point, he referred to what he described as a “Naxalites idea” of law-making.
Muralidhar objected to the remark and sought its withdrawal, saying such a comment did not befit a law officer. Mehta later said he was referring to people who, according to him, did not respect the law-making process and declined to retract the remark.
The bench did not intervene in the exchange and said it was not taking note of the comments.
The Supreme Court’s observations do not decide the underlying constitutional challenge at this stage. The Centre’s response to Krishna’s petition will be considered as the case proceeds.
