The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 22) asked the Centre to respond to a petition challenging penal provisions for refusing to sing Vande Mataram, while referring to its 1986 judgment protecting students who declined to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant was hearing a petition by Carnatic musician and author TM Krishna, who challenged the requirement to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram, arguing that the last four stanzas violate the secular character of the nation.
What court said
The court said it would expect the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala to govern the amended law. In that case, the court had protected schoolchildren who respectfully declined to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience.
Also read: SC refuses to entertain plea concerning allocation of Cauvery river water
The Bench indicated that it was not for the court to determine what constitutes the national song, but said it would examine whether the rights of a “conscientious objector”, particularly one who declines to sing on religious grounds, are protected under the law.
The Bench said determining the national song was a matter for the democratic state and the court would not second-guess the national sentiment or aspiration associated with Vande Mataram.
At the same time, it indicated that a conscientious objector should not be subjected to criminal consequences merely for declining to sing one or more stanzas.
“Nobody who feels an infraction of Article 25, 26 rights (freedom to practice religion under the Constitution) or a conscientious objector would be subjected to (penal consequences),” Justice Bagchi said.
He said the court was not examining what should constitute the national song.
SG opposes petition
Krishna’s lawyer, S Muralidhar, also questioned the government’s directions requiring all six stanzas to be sung and argued that the law does not clearly define the official version of Vande Mataram.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition. During the exchanges, Mehta opposed the petitioner’s submissions and submitted that “secularism cannot be this narrow”.
At another stage, the solicitor general said that “law making cannot be as per Naxalites idea”.
Muralidhar strongly objected to the submissions and sought withdrawal of the remark, saying such a comment did not “befit” a law officer.
Mehta said his reference was to those who, according to him, did not respect the law-making process. After the hearing, Muralidhar again sought a retraction, but the Solicitor General declined to withdraw the remark.
“I can repeat what I said. One has to go by law. I am not sorry about what I said. I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants. And I am not sorry about it,” the solicitor general said.
‘Playing to the gallery’
Muralidhar later accused the solicitor general of “playing to the gallery”.
The Bench did not intervene in the exchange, but said it was not taking note of the comments.
The petition challenged Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as amended in 2026, along with MHA orders dated January 28 and July 9, 2026.
According to the petition, the amended Section 3 provides for imprisonment of up to three years, or 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.
(With agency inputs)