The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed scepticism over a plea challenging a government circular relating to the playing and singing of the national song, observing that the directive appears to be merely advisory in nature and carries no penal consequences.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi repeatedly questioned whether the impugned circular imposes any enforceable obligation or legal sanction.
“What is mandatory? Nothing is mandatory. We read [the circular] as an advisory to the people…Whenever a direction is mandatory, it must be visited with penal consequences. Where is the penal consequence?”
The Bench drew a distinction with its earlier ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel, where students were expelled for not singing the national anthem.
“In B.J. Emmanuel, the students were rusticated, there were penal consequences. Here, if the song is sung and I don’t sing it, am I removed from the congregation? We have not been able to read any such consequence,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed.
Questioning the basis of the petitioner’s apprehensions, the Court further asked whether any notice had been issued compelling compliance.
“Where is the notice issued to you that you are compelled to play the national song?” the Bench queried, noting that the circular merely prescribes a protocol. The Court also indicated that in the absence of any adverse consequences or enforcement mechanism, the plea is premature. “This is only a premature apprehension… we do not see a clear nexus with the impugned directive,” the Bench said, adding that any real cause of action would arise only if coercive steps or discrimination are shown.
At the same time, appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Sr Adv Sanjay Hegde argued that even advisory directions can create indirect pressure on citizens to conform, raising concerns about freedom of conscience. “Patriotism cannot be compelled… the Constitution must protect individual conscience,” he submitted.
To this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta replied that “A person who says that patriotism cannot be compelled, if that is the ideology, then I would say that is the highest form of patriotism, but such a person is not entitled to be entrusted with the writ jurisdiction of this Court.”
The Bench ultimately indicated that the challenge, at this stage, is based on speculative apprehensions rather than an actual violation of rights. The matter was thus treated as premature, with liberty to approach the Court again if any concrete cause of action arises.