Don't punish those refusing to sing Vande Mataram on conscience grounds: SC to govt

The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the government that people who refuse to sing Vande Mataram on grounds of conscience should not face penal consequences. It also asked the government to keep in mind a 1986 judgment that protected schoolchildren who respectfully declined to sing the national anthem.

The court referred to its 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala judgment, in which it protected schoolchildren who respectfully refused to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience, and said it expected the same principle to apply to the amended law.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna challenging the law mandating the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, sought the government's response to the plea.

Justice Bagchi said the court would expect the principle laid down in the 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala to govern the amended law. "We would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the (amended) Act," Justice Bagchi observed orally while addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The judge said it was for the democratic state to decide what constitutes the national song and whether two, four or six stanzas should be sung.

However, he said, "A person who believes that singing the song infringes their rights under Articles 25 and 26, or is a conscientious objector, should not face penal consequences."

The court clarified that it was not examining what should constitute the national song or second-guessing the national sentiments associated with Vande Mataram.

The hearing also saw a sharp exchange between senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, and Mehta.

Mehta opposed the petition and argued that "secularism cannot be this narrow". At another point, he said that "law making cannot be as per Naxalites idea". 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 those who, according to him, did not respect the law-making process. He declined to retract his remark after the hearing.

The bench did not intervene in the exchange and said it was not taking note of the comments.WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?

Carnatic vocalist Krishna's plea challenges Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as amended in 2026, as well as the Home Ministry orders dated January 28 and July 9.

The amended Section 3 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.

Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, argued that the amendment does not define the expression "national song", creating uncertainty over which version or stanzas are covered.

He also challenged the Home Ministry's directions requiring the rendition of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram, arguing that the directions were issued through an office memorandum that had not been gazetted.

When Justice Bagchi observed that Vande Mataram was customarily understood as the national song, Muralidhar submitted that the established understanding related to its first two stanzas.

Krishna's petition argues that extending penal provisions to the national song, along with directions to sing all six stanzas, raises 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.- Ends(with inputs from PTI)Published By: India Today Web Desk Published On: Sep 23, 2026 08:47 IST