The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday deferred the hearing in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the State government's decision to limit the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government functions [Girish Bharadwaj v State of Karnataka].
A Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice TP Vivekananda directed that the plea be listed after three weeks.
This was after the State pointed out that a similar matter is pending before the Supreme Court.
A petition filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna is currently pending before the apex court challenging the constitutional validity of a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which makes intentionally preventing the singing of ‘Vande Mataram’ or disrupting an assembly engaged in its singing punishable with up to three years in jail.
The PIL before the High Court was filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj through advocate Angad Kamath.
It challenges the September 8 State government order providing that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram be sung at State government programmes. The order, however, provides an exception for programmes where the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor are in attendance and permits all 6 stanzas be sung in such programmes.
Stating that the Parliament recently enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 to include Vande Mataram as a national song and provide it with similar status as the national anthem, the PIL contends that the government order has undermined the parliament's intent to protect the full version of the song.
The cabinet issued the order after an 'informal discussion' which was not supplemented by legal advice or by a cabinet Note of the administrative department, the PIL states.
During Tuesday's hearing, Kamath argued that the State could not decide the content of a national song, particularly after the parliament amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 to extend statutory protection to Vande Mataram.
“Who has the prerogative to regulate a national symbol, the national song, the Centre or the State?” asked Kamath.
He also questioned the manner in which the State decision was taken, submitting that the Cabinet had discussed the issue informally without a Cabinet note from the concerned department or legal advice.
Kamath further relied on Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution, arguing that States are required to comply with parliamentary laws and cannot obstruct the Union's executive powers.
The State, however, defended the order.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) communication on Vande Mataram and said it was meant only as guidance and did not make singing the song mandatory.
“There is no mandate to sing the national song. From 1932 till today, only the first two stanzas are sung,” he submitted.
Shetty also argued that the amended law does not define “national song” and that the Constitution does not expressly refer to Vande Mataram in the manner it refers to the national anthem.
The issue has already reached the Supreme Court in separate proceedings.
The apex court is now considering a challenge by Carnatic musician TM Krishna to the Centre's directions on the six-stanza version and the 2026 amendment to the national honour law.
On Tuesday, the apex court indicated that it would examine the penal consequences of the amended law.
The top court also referred to its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, which protected students who respectfully stood during the national anthem but did not sing it on grounds of conscience and religion.
The Karnataka High Court was told that the Supreme Court matter is expected to be taken up further in about two weeks.
The High Court therefore directed that the Karnataka PIL be listed after three weeks.
[Read Live Coverage]