The Supreme Court has indicated that people who respectfully refuse to sing Vande Mataram because of their religious beliefs or conscience should not face criminal punishment.
The observation came while the court was hearing a petition challenging the legal provisions that provide penal protection to the national song.
Court Refers To 1986 Landmark Judgment
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant referred to the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in the Bijoe Emmanuel case.
In that case, the court protected three schoolchildren who did not sing the national anthem because of their religious beliefs. The students had, however, stood respectfully when the anthem was played.
The Supreme Court indicated that the same principle should apply when considering people who choose not to sing Vande Mataram for reasons of conscience or religion.
No Criminal Action For Respectful Refusal
The court’s observation focuses on people who decline to sing without disrupting or disrespecting the occasion.
A person who simply chooses not to sing because of a genuine religious or conscientious objection would not, according to the court’s stated expectation, be subjected to criminal consequences.
This is different from deliberately preventing others from singing or disrupting an assembly.
T M Krishna Challenged The Law
The case stems from a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna.
Krishna has challenged provisions relating to the singing of Vande Mataram, including the requirement concerning its six stanzas and government directions on its rendition.
The petition raises questions involving freedom of conscience, religious freedom and the limits of criminal law in matters involving national symbols.
2026 Amendment Brought Vande Mataram Under Penal Law
The legal dispute follows a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The amendment extended penal protection under the law to the national song along with the national anthem.
The legislation deals with conduct that intentionally prevents the singing of the national anthem or national song or causes disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
The Supreme Court is examining how these provisions should apply to individuals who respectfully decline to participate.
Court Not Deciding The Number Of Stanzas
The bench also made it clear that the current proceedings are not about deciding whether Vande Mataram should be sung in two, four or all six stanzas.
The court indicated that questions concerning the prescribed form of the national song fall within the domain of the government and the democratic process.
Its immediate concern is the legal position of an individual who chooses not to sing because of conscience or religious belief.
Centre Asked To Respond
The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response to the petition.
The government’s arguments will be considered as the case progresses. The latest observations are therefore not a final judgment striking down any provision of the amended law.
Bijoe Emmanuel Case Becomes Key
The 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment has emerged as an important reference point in the proceedings.
The earlier case established protection for students who respectfully declined to sing the national anthem while standing during its rendition.
The current case will examine how that constitutional principle interacts with the amended legal framework covering Vande Mataram.
Final Verdict Yet To Come
The Supreme Court’s latest remarks provide an indication of how it is approaching the issue, but the legal challenge itself remains pending.
The Centre’s response and subsequent hearings will determine how the court ultimately interprets the provisions concerning refusal to sing Vande Mataram.
Summary
The Supreme Court has indicated that people who respectfully refuse to sing Vande Mataram on religious or conscientious grounds should not face criminal punishment. The court referred to its 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, which protected students who respectfully declined to sing the national anthem. The court is examining the amended legal framework while the Centre’s response remains awaited.
Image Source