Subscribe
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 22, sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna challenging the penal action against those who do not sing all six stanzas of the National Song, Vande Mataram. Krishna’s writ petition challenges the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) direction mandating the singing of all six stanzas of the song.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana said it expected the law laid down by the Supreme Court to govern the amended law, particularly in relation to people who conscientiously object to singing the National Song on religious grounds.
The court said that a conscientious objector who does not sing one or all the stanzas of the National Song would not be subjected to criminal prosecution, according to the submissions recorded during the hearing.
Krishna has challenged Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as amended by the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, along with two MHA orders dated January 28 and July 9, 2026.
According to his writ petition, the amended Section 3 provides that anyone who intentionally prevents the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or causes disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing, can face imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both.
The petition says the MHA orders prescribe all six stanzas of Vande Mataram as the “official version” of the National Song and direct that it be played with mass singing at specified governmental, ceremonial, and cultural occasions. It also says that when Vande Mataram and the National Anthem are both sung or played, Vande Mataram is to precede the National Anthem.
Appearing for Krishna, senior advocate S Muralidhar argued that the amended Act does not define what constitutes a “national song”. “The Act does not define what a national song is. It is a serious lacuna in the law, and it can be misused,” Muralidhar said, according to Bar and Bench.
He also questioned the legal basis of the MHA office memorandum, pointing out that it was not gazetted and did not cite the statutory provision under which it had been issued.
Muralidhar argued that criminal legislation must be clear and precise. “Yes. The law is very clear. It’s a penal statute. And a penal statute can’t be in the realm of vagueness. You don’t even define what a national song is in the statute, and you make it a punishable offence,” he said.
Justice Bagchi, however, observed that Vande Mataram had historically been understood as the National Song. “We will use that as customary. Even the Constitution didn’t mention the national song in Article 51A. By customs and usage, the national song has always been mentioned and understood as Vande Mataram, with the two stanzas,” Justice Bagchi said.
Is Vande Mataram our ‘national song’?
Muralidhar argued that the government was now seeking to treat all six stanzas as the National Song. “So for the first time, after almost 80 years, they are trying to tell us it’s not two stanzas. This is why, when you use the adjective ‘national’, there has to be some building of a public opinion. It has to be by some consensus. You can’t thrust it, and you can’t have penal consequences. That is what is most worrying,” he said.
The petition similarly contends that Vande Mataram was never formally adopted in its entirety as the National Song by the Constituent Assembly. It says that in 1937, following objections from Muslim members over the deity-invoking stanzas, the Congress Working Committee resolved that only the first two stanzas should be sung at national gatherings.
The petition further states that when the Constituent Assembly accorded Vande Mataram “equal honour” with Jana Gana Mana on January 24, 1950, it did not specify which stanzas were covered and did not disturb the 1937 restriction.
It also points out that when Parliament enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act in 1971, it extended statutory protection to the Constitution, National Flag and National Anthem, but did not provide similar protection to Vande Mataram or define a “National Song”.
The petition says this position continued for more than five decades until the MHA issued its January 28, 2026 order directing that Vande Mataram be sung in its entirety and before the National Anthem at specified functions. The petition notes that a challenge to the order was dismissed as premature by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2026, as the order then carried no penal consequences.
According to the petition, the subsequent amendment fundamentally changed the position by providing the criminal sanction that was absent when it was decided then.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Justice Bagchi said the court was not inclined to second-guess the national sentiments and aspirations associated with Vande Mataram. “It’s not the remit of the Court to second-guess what the national sentiments and aspirations are associated with Vande Mataram. It’s for the State,” he said.
The judge added that a conscientious objector should not face criminal prosecution for refusing to sing one or all of the stanzas. “The declaration of law in Bijoe Emmanuel has till now not been questioned,” Justice Bagchi said.
The 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment concerned three schoolchildren in Kerala who belonged to the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith and did not sing the National Anthem because of their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court recognised their right to remain respectfully silent.
During the hearing, the Bench also considered Muralidhar’s submission that the last four stanzas of Vande Mataram contain explicit religious imagery.
Religious imagery in Vande Mataram
The petition says Stanzas 3 to 6 depict the motherland as an object of temple worship and name or salute Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. It argues that this forms the basis of Krishna’s conscientious objection under Article 25(1).
The petition also distinguishes the first two stanzas from the remaining four on historical and musical grounds. It states that the first two were composed and published as a standalone song in 1875, while the later stanzas were added when Vande Mataram was incorporated into Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel Anandamath.
Krishna’s petition argues that the six stanzas do not constitute a single cohesive musical composition and that making their rendition compulsory therefore amounts to State compulsion of a contested religious and historical text.
The petition challenges the amended law and executive directions on several constitutional grounds, including freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25(1), equality under Article 14, protection against discrimination under Article 15(1), and personal liberty under Article 21.
It specifically argues that the absence of an exemption for conscientious objectors makes the amended provision inconsistent with the protection recognised in Bijoe Emmanuel. It also challenges the word “disturbance” in Section 3(b) as vague and overbroad, arguing that it could affect scholarly criticism, artistic expression and teaching concerning Vande Mataram.
The petition also argues that the provision has a disparate impact on non-Hindu citizens because the stanzas invoke Hindu deities, and therefore raises an Article 15(1) challenge.
Reliefs sought
The petition seeks, among other reliefs, a declaration that the amended Section 3 and the MHA directions violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights. It also seeks clarification that only two of the six stanzas described in the impugned orders constitute the National Song, besides interim protection pending final adjudication.
At one point during the hearing, a dispute broke out between Muralidhar and Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta after Mehta referred to the legislative decision-making process in terms that Muralidhar objected to.
Muralidhar asked Mehta to withdraw the reference to “Naxalites”, saying such an expression was inappropriate for a law officer. “Why is a law officer using these kinds of expressions? It doesn’t behove a law officer. I have never heard a law officer use these kinds of expressions. With the greatest respect, he unnecessarily used an expression. There is some decorum that we have to observe,” Muralidhar said.
Mehta said he was referring to constitutional legislative decision-making and reiterated that he was not apologetic about the remark. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde then said, “For an officer of this Court to have a mind is not to be a Naxalite.”
Justice Bagchi subsequently spoke about the importance of constitutional institutions and said courts have credibility because constitutional processes apply even to people accused of serious offences.
The Bench eventually directed that the paper book be handed over to the Solicitor-General and asked the Centre to furnish its counter-affidavit or response within two weeks. The matter was posted for further consideration.
