'Person Not Singing Vande Mataram For Religious Reasons Should Face No Criminal Consequences': Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Centre on a writ petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which extends penal protection to Vande Mataram, as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs' directions mandating the singing of all six stanzas of the National Song at official functions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note of submissions by senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna. The bench said it would examine the penal aspect of the law and whether the right of a conscientious objector not to sing the song, as recognised in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, is protected.
The court orally observed that it was not within its remit to decide what the "National Song" is. It said, however, that it would examine the issue of penal consequences in the context of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and protect individual and collective religious freedoms.
The bench also said it expected the precedent laid down in the Bijoe Emmanuel case to be followed and that a person who does not sing Vande Mataram for religious reasons would not face criminal consequences.
The challenge centres on the last four of the six stanzas of Vande Mataram. Krishna has contended that these stanzas expressly invoke Hindu deities, including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, and that requiring citizens to sing them amounts to compelled religious and ideological affirmation.
Krishna has argued that mandating the singing of these portions violates the secular character of the nation. His plea states that the amendment bringing Vande Mataram under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act is arbitrary, violates personal liberty and furthers a "majoritarian religious message".
The plea also argues that the measures violate the constitutional principle of secularism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court did not issue notice to the Centre on the plea at this stage, but sought its response on the challenge. (with inputs from media organisations)
