Published Sep 22, 2026 | 1:29 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 22, 2026 | 1:29 PM
Supreme court of India
Synopsis: The petition argues that the Centre’s directions go beyond regulating protocol. He submits that the amendment effectively compel citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas, which, according to the plea, contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. It relies on the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala
Carnatic musician TM Krishna on Tuesday, 22 September, moved the Supreme Court challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs’ directions mandating the singing of the complete six stanzas of the song at official functions.
According to a Livelaw report, he also challenged the the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which extends penal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram.
The amended law makes it punishable with imprisonment of up to 3 years, fine, or both to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
Also Read: Vande Mataram-150: Mother of Bharat or Mother of Hindu Rashtra?
The writ petition was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana.
According to Bar and Bench, the petition argues that the Centre’s directions go beyond regulating protocol. He submits that the amendment effectively compel citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas, which, according to the plea, contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati.
“In consequence and in effect, the Impugned State Action does not merely regulate national protocol or prescribe a uniform code of conduct for public functions. It compels a ceremony of assent to a symbol whose last four stanzas, Stanzas 3 to 6, are expressly devotional, deity-invoking and non-secular,” contended the plea.
The plea challenges the measures under Articles 14 (equality), 15(1) (protection against discrimination), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (life and personal liberty) and 25(1) (freedom of conscience and religion).
It relies on the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, where the Court protected schoolchildren who stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing it because of their religious beliefs.
Krishna contends that the criminal penalty makes the issue fundamentally different from a mere protocol governing national functions.
“By mandating the rendition of all six stanzas under penal sanction, the State transforms what is unquestionably a contested historical symbol into a compelled orthodoxy,” submits the plea.
During the hearing, a heated exchange took place between Senior Advocate S Muralidhar representing TM Krishna and Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta over the use of the word “Naxalite”.
The senior advocate noted that the understanding regarding “Vande Mataram” has been abruptly changed by the Government through an Office Memorandum. The amendment has been passed hastily without building any national consensus, he added.
Responding to which, the SG commented that “law making cannot be as per Naxalites idea”.
Muralidhar took strong objection to the “Naxalite” remark, and demanded that the SG withdraw it, saying that such a comment did not behove a law officer. The Solicitor however maintained that he was referring to those who were not respecting the law-making process.
#BREAKING Heated exchange in Supreme Court between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar during hearing of TM Krishna’s challenge concerning Vande Mataram.
Muralidhar strongly objected after the SG used the expression “Naxalite” while responding to… pic.twitter.com/m3rLTr73PM
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) September 22, 2026
While asking the Union to put in their response, Justice Bagchi said, “Mr. Solicitor, 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 Act. What is the national song is not in dispute.”
“The declaration of law in Bijoe Emmanuel is not yet questioned. It is for the democratic state to decide what is the national song, whether two stanza or four stanza. But nobody who feels an infraction of Art. 25, 26 rights or a conscientious objector would be subjected to [penal consequences].”
“It’s not the remit of the court to second-guess what is the national sentiments or aspiration associated with Vande Mataram. It is for the state. It is for a conscientious objector not to decide one or all stanzas, and [State is] not going to subject him to criminal consequences.”
Vande Mataram is a poem written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in the early 1870s, which was later included in his novel Anandamath.
It was used during the freedom struggle but later also adopted by the right-wing groups as a communal cry to unite Hindus against Muslims during riots and conflicts. This prompted leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore to suggest the removal of its controversial parts and keep the first two stanzas to be used as the national song. The leaders also noted that some parts of the poem portray the nation as Goddess Durga, which goes against the religious beliefs of Muslims and Christians. At the advice of Gandhi and Tagore, the Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru decided to use just two stanzas of the song, a decision which was upheld by the Constituent Assembly in January, 1950, when Rajendra Prasad declared it the national song.
However, the RSS and the BJP have long been pushing for the use of Vande Mataram’s full version, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeatedly accusing the Congress of demeaning the song and limiting it to two paragraphs to “appease” its Muslim vote bank.
Earlier this year, the Union Home Ministry issued directives requiring the recital of the entire song at schools and at government functions, and mentioning that it should be given priority over the national anthem. When the directive was challenged before the Supreme Court, the court dismissed the petition, saying there was no penalty associated with failure to follow the instructions, as it was merely an advisory. However, the new Bill mentions disruption of the singing of the national song as an offence inviting penalty and punishment.
Also Read: Explained | Vande Mataram: The history behind Congress’ two-stanza decision—is the BJP ignoring it?
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
