The Supreme Court Tuesday declined to examine whether Vande Mataram should be recognised as the National Song or whether its official rendition should comprise two or six stanzas, saying decisions concerning national symbols and the aspirations attached to them fall within the domain of an elected government. It, however, agreed to examine whether citizens who decline to sing the song on grounds of conscience or religion can face criminal consequences.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said its scrutiny would focus on the penal consequences arising from the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which extended protection under Section 3 to the “National Song” alongside the National Anthem. The court indicated that its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, which protected students who declined to sing the National Anthem on grounds of religious belief while standing respectfully, would continue to guide the issue.
Penal provision questioned
The court was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist and author T M Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment as well as Union Home Ministry directions prescribing the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram for specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions.
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 petition has challenged the provision on grounds including freedom of speech, equality, religious freedom and protection against discrimination. His case is that compelling citizens to participate in a rendition containing all six stanzas could infringe the freedom of conscience of those who object to portions containing references to Hindu deities.
The bench, however, drew a distinction between the government’s authority to recognise a national symbol and the use of criminal law to compel participation. It said courts were not required to “second-guess” national sentiments and aspirations associated with Vande Mataram, while making it clear that penal consequences could be subjected to constitutional scrutiny.
Conscientious objection
The court indicated that a person with a genuine conscientious objection to singing one or more stanzas should not be exposed to criminal prosecution merely for declining to participate. It also said the proceedings would remain confined to constitutional and legal questions rather than becoming an adjudication on religion or the religious meaning of the song’s lyrics.
The bench referred to Bijoe Emmanuel, in which the Supreme Court protected three schoolchildren belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith after they were expelled for refusing to sing the National Anthem because of their religious beliefs. The children had stood respectfully during the anthem, and the court held that their refusal to sing did not amount to disrespect.
Senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, argued that the amended law introduced the expression “National Song” into a penal statute without defining either the National Song or the version of Vande Mataram covered by it. He also argued that the opening two stanzas had generally been used for official purposes for decades and questioned the prescription of all six stanzas alongside possible criminal consequences.
Centre gets two weeks
The petition has also challenged the Home Ministry directions on the ground that executive instructions cannot independently create criminal liability or curtail fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the petition be supplied to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and gave the Centre two weeks to file its response. The matter will be considered thereafter.
The proceedings will therefore focus on the constitutional limits of imposing criminal consequences in relation to the National Song rather than on determining which version of Vande Mataram should receive official recognition.