Vande Mataram 
Litigation News

Plea in Karnataka High Court challenges State order on singing only 2 stanzas of Vande Mataram

The plea argues that the State government’s decision contravenes the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026.

Hiranya Bhandarkar

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Karnataka High Court against State government‘s recent order mandating that only first two stanzas of national song Vande Mataram be sung at State functions [Girish Bharadwaj v State of Karnataka].

The PIL has been filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj who will be represented by advocate Angad Kamath. It is likely to be mentioned for an urgent hearing on Wednesday.

On September 8, the State government mandated that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram be sung at State government functions. 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.

It further argues that government order is restrictive of the citizens' fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

It also contends that national symbols such as the national song can only be legislated on by the parliament with its residuary powers under Article 248 and Entry 97, List I of the Seventh Schedule, Indian Constitution which empowers the parliament to legislate on subjects not mentioned in the State (List II) or Concurrent List (List III).

It further states that the State's order violates Article 256 which obliges States to comply with laws made by the parliament and Article 257(1) that mandates the State's executive powers to not obstruct or prejudice the Union's exercise of executive power.

Jammu and Kashmir HC grants anticipatory bail to police SI accused of sexually exploiting constable

Can PMLA adjudicating authority function without judicial member? Supreme Court reserves verdict

We hope he is not acting: Supreme Court on Rajpal Yadav's request to extend deadline to deposit ₹5 crore

Delhi court grants Swatantra Bhardwaj interim bail for 3 weeks in CJP protest assault case

Shocking opaqueness: Delhi HC slams ITAT for passing order in Patanjali case without application of mind

SCROLL FOR NEXT