The Supreme Court on 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 the choice of national symbols and the aspirations associated with them fall within the remit of an elected government, even as it agreed to examine whether that recognition can carry criminal consequences for a citizen who, on grounds of conscience or religion, chooses not to sing it.
The observations came on a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist, author and Ramon Magsaysay Award recipient TM Krishna, who has challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment as well as Ministry of Home Affairs directions prescribing the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram for specified governmental, ceremonial and cultural occasions. Krishna’s challenge invokes alleged breach of fundamental rights relating to equality, religious freedom, free speech and right against discrimination, arguing that the amendment and the MHA directions effectively compel citizens to participate in the rendition of all six stanzas, including portions that expressly invoke Hindu deities. But the bench drew a clear line between the State’s choice of a national symbol and the State’s power to enforce participation in it through criminal law. “It is not the remit of the court to second-guess what are the national sentiments and aspirations associated with Vande Mataram. At the same time, it made clear that such State recognition could not override a genuine conscientious objection. But no conscientious objector can be subjected to penal consequences.”
The bench also indicated that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs State of Kerala (1986) would continue to govern the field.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made it clear that its scrutiny would centre on the penal consequences attached to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which extended criminal protection under Section 3 to the “National Song”, alongside the National Anthem. “Nobody who feels an infraction of Article 25, 26 rights would be subjected to penal consequences,” said the bench, adding that “for a conscientious objector, not to recite one or all the stanzas of the national song is not going to subject himself to criminal prosecution. It is for the State,” said the bench. “To the extent of penal consequences the Act provides, (that) can be gone into,” said the bench, while observing that “in a democracy, State is best placed to give aspiration to the national song.
Tensions Emerge in Legislative Hearing
During a recent hearing, tensions flared between Justice Muralidhar and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The conflict arose when Mehta referred to “Naxalites” while defending the legislative authority of Parliament. Muralidhar strongly objected to this terminology, arguing that such language was inappropriate for a law officer in a live hearing and requested its withdrawal.
