The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it expects people who refuse to sing Vande Mataram for reasons of religious conscience not to face criminal consequences, while hearing a petition by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging the law that extends penal protection to the National Song.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, sought the Centre’s response to Krishna’s challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
Supreme Court Refers to 1986 Judgment
Justice Bagchi said the court would examine whether the protection given to conscientious objectors in the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala judgment continues to apply.
“We expect no criminal consequences” for conscientious objectors to Vande Mataram, Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing. He said it was for the democratic state to decide the contours of the National Song, including whether two or more stanzas should be treated as part of it.
The bench said the court was not deciding what constitutes the National Song but would consider whether people exercising their rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution could face penal action for refusing to sing it.
The Bijoe Emmanuel judgment had protected three schoolchildren who refused to sing the National Anthem because of their religious beliefs, while they stood respectfully during its rendition.
TM Krishna Challenges Six-Stanza Requirement
Krishna has challenged the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act along with Ministry of Home Affairs directions requiring the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified official functions.
His petition argues that the last four stanzas contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. According to the petition, making the singing of the complete version compulsory could interfere with freedom of conscience and religion.
Krishna has challenged the measures under several fundamental rights, including equality, freedom of speech and expression, personal liberty and freedom of conscience and religion.
The petition also argues that the amended law could have a wider impact because Section 3 now provides for imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both, for intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or National Song or causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
Centre Defends Government’s Position
Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, argued that the amended law does not clearly define what constitutes the “National Song”. He also questioned the Centre’s directions requiring the six-stanza version.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the challenge and argued that the issue should not be viewed only through the question of secularism.
During the hearing, Mehta referred to a “Naxalite” approach while discussing the law-making process. Muralidhar strongly objected to the remark and asked the Solicitor General to withdraw it.
Mehta refused to retract the comment, saying he was referring to those who did not respect the law-making process. The Supreme Court said it was not taking note of the exchange.
Court Leaves National Song Question to Government
The Supreme Court made clear that it would not decide at this stage whether Vande Mataram should consist of two, four or six stanzas.
Justice Bagchi said that determining the national sentiment or aspiration associated with the song was not for the court to decide. Instead, the court will examine whether existing constitutional protections prevent criminal action against a person who refuses to sing it on grounds of conscience or religion.
The Centre has now been asked to respond to Krishna’s petition, and the constitutional challenge remains pending before the Supreme Court.
