The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre’s response to a plea challenging the mandate requiring the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram and the penal consequences introduced for certain conduct relating to the National Song.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna, represented by Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar.
Krishna has challenged the Centre’s directions requiring the official six-stanza version of Vande Mataram to be used at official and mass functions, as well as the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which extends statutory protection to the National Song.
The amended law makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or to intentionally cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing. The punishment can extend to three years’ imprisonment, fine, or both.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate S Muralidhar argued that the amended law, being a penal statute, could not leave the conduct attracting criminal consequences vague. He questioned the legal basis for an Office Memorandum relied upon by the authorities, submitting:
“
“They can use this lacuna in the Act and it can be misused because whereas they introduced this office memorandum which is not even legally legitimate. I don’t know under what provision they do not cite any provision. They simply issue an office memorandum.”
The Bench also questioned the absence of a statutory definition of the National Song and observed: “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.”
The Court indicated that while it was not inclined to enter into the question of what constitutes the National Song, it would examine the penal consequences of the amended law, particularly in the context of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, concerning the rights of students who declined to sing the National Anthem on grounds of conscience. The Court indicated that the protection recognised in that judgment would have relevance while examining whether a conscientious objector could face criminal consequences for not singing the National Song.
Muralidhar argued that Vande Mataram had traditionally been understood as comprising two stanzas and questioned the attempt to treat all six stanzas as the National Song through an executive direction. He further submitted that where the State seeks to attach the word “national” to a song and impose penal consequences, there should be public consensus.
“
“National song has always been meant and understood as what they want. With the two stanzas. So for the first time after almost 80 years, they’re trying to tell us it’s not two stanzas. When one has to use the adjective national, there has to be some building of a public opinion. It has to be with some consensus. You can’t trust it and you can’t have penal consequences. That is what is most worrying.”
The Bench, however, observed that determining national aspirations and deciding what constitutes the National Song was primarily a matter for the democratically elected government, while the Court could examine the constitutional implications of imposing penal consequences.
The Supreme Court accordingly sought the Centre’s response to the petition.
The hearing saw an intense exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar over Mehta’s reference to “Naxalites” while defending the constitutional process of law-making.
Read at: