Language Settings
Select Website Language

GDPR Compliance

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service.

Supreme Court No Penalty for Refusing to Sing Vande Mataram

1 hour ago

3

0

React
👍 ❤️ 😂 😮 😢 😡
Bookmark

Supreme Court tells Centre conscientious objectors cannot be punished for declining to sing Vande Mataram, citing its 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel ruling.

Anyone who refuses to sing Vande Mataram as a matter of conscience must not face punishment, the Supreme Court told the central government on Tuesday. The bench asked the Centre to be guided by a 1986 ruling that shielded children who declined to sing the national anthem on grounds of conscience.

The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, was hearing a plea filed by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna. Krishna is contesting a law that requires all six stanzas of Vande Mataram to be sung, contending that the final four verses undermine the country's secular foundation.

The judges declined to issue formal notice on the petition but signalled how they expect the amended law to operate. They pointed to the court's own decision in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, in which schoolchildren who respectfully chose not to sing the anthem were protected on conscience grounds.

"We are not inclined to issue notice. But we would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the (amended) Act," Justice Bagchi said orally, speaking to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Justice Bagchi drew a clear line between the identity of the national song and the treatment of those who object to singing it. Deciding whether the national song runs to two stanzas or four, he said, rests with an elected government, not the court. But a person who invokes rights under Articles 25 and 26 - the freedom of religion guarantees - or who objects on conscience should not be exposed to criminal penalties. The court, he stressed, was not weighing in on what the national song ought to be, nor on the sentiments attached to Vande Mataram. Its concern was whether an objector, especially one refusing on religious grounds, is safeguarded.

What the amended law says

Krishna's petition targets Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as amended in 2026, together with two Ministry of Home Affairs orders dated 28 January and 9 July 2026. The revised Section 3 allows imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both for anyone who deliberately obstructs the singing of the national anthem or the national song, or disrupts a gathering engaged in singing them.

According to the plea, applying criminal sanctions to the national song, along with instructions to render all six stanzas, throws up serious questions about free speech, freedom of conscience, equality, religious liberty and secularism. The petition also objects to the rule that the full six-stanza text be treated as the official version, and to the requirement that Vande Mataram be performed before the national anthem when both are sung or played.

The lawyers clash

Senior advocate S Muralidhar, arguing for Krishna, said the amendment never spells out what the term "national song" means, leaving room for confusion and abuse. Parliament, he argued, had not identified which version or which stanzas make up the song. He added that the ministry's directions came through an office memorandum that was never published in the official gazette, and that the government had effectively rewritten the accepted meaning of Vande Mataram through executive orders.

When Justice Bagchi noted that Vande Mataram had long been treated as the national song, Muralidhar responded that this accepted understanding applied only to its first two stanzas. He also argued that the amendment had been rushed through without building any national consensus.

Mehta pressed the bench not to issue notice, warning that doing so risked sensationalising the matter. He opposed Krishna's arguments and said secularism "cannot be this narrow." At one stage he remarked that "law making cannot be as per Naxalites idea," prompting a sharp reaction.

Muralidhar objected strongly and demanded the comment be withdrawn, saying it was unbecoming of a law officer. Mehta replied that he was referring to people who, in his view, disregarded the process of making laws. Asked again after the hearing to retract, he refused.

"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," Mehta said. Muralidhar then charged that the solicitor general was "playing to the gallery." The judges stayed out of the dispute, noting only that they were not recording the remarks.

Vande Mataram, Supreme Court, T M Krishna, conscientious objector, Bijoe Emmanuel, Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, freedom of conscience, Tushar Mehta

Click here to Read More
  • Share:
Gold-Domed Manhattan Penthouse Sells for $9M, Cash to Africa
Previous Article
Gold-Domed Manhattan Penthouse Sells for $9M, Cash to Africa
Next Article
Nasdaq Hits Record Close As Dow Slips Chipmakers Surge
Nasdaq Hits Record Close As Dow Slips Chipmakers Surge

Related India Updates:

Are you sure? You want to delete this comment..! Remove Cancel

Comments (0)

    Leave a comment

    Send