Supreme Court seeks Centre's response on pleas challenging compulsory singing of full version of Vande Mataram

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Central government's response to two petitions challenging Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) orders that mandate the singing of all six stanzas of national song Vande Mataram at formal State events [BD Borkar v. Union of India, Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji v. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice on a plea filed by a Buddhist activist who termed two government orders (GO) with the full song mandate Islamophobic, and one filed by an ex-IAS officer who termed the full version of Vande Mataram a "religious war song."

The petitions challenge the GOs issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on January 28 and July 9, 2026 (Orders relating to singing or playing of the National Song and the National Anthem of India).

Nagpur-based Buddhist and civil rights activist BD Borkar has contended that the GOs illegally replace a 79-year-old practice of singing a standalone, non-theistic two-stanza poem (Vande Mataram) with the full version of the poem containing explicit anti-Muslim invectives.

His plea points out that the two-stanza version of Vande Mataram, written in the early 1870s, pre-dates the novel Anandamath, written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, the author of Vande Mataram.

The pre-Anandamath version pays tribute to the natural landscape without invoking any religious deity or sectarian conflict, the plea adds.

However, stanzas three to six, embedded within the Anandamath novel, transform the song into a prayer to Hindu deities - Goddesses Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati - to wage war against Muslims, who are depicted as foes in the novel.

Borkar argues that forcing citizens to sing the full six-stanza text damages national fraternity and deepens communal divisions.

Similar concerns have been raised in a plea filed by Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, a former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer who presently serves as the Chairman of the Anupathika Prathinidhya Prakshobha Samithi (APPS), an organisation working for the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India.

Mavoji's plea states that making the playing or singing of the six-stanza version of the song mandatory violates his freedom of religion and consience, and undermines the principles of secularism and fraternity enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Mavoji has submitted that he is a Hindu who belongs to a Scheduled Caste (SC) community that expressly rejects Vaishnavite or Saktheya religious practices or any other sectarian theistic practice, whereas such doctrines underpine the novel Anandamath and the six-stanzas of the "Religious War Song" in it (the full version of the Vande Mataram).

His plea also states that historically, there was no express decision to confer Vande Mataram the status of national song, although over the years its two stanza version has been recognised as the national song through custom and practice.

"Thus, the use of the 2-stanza, stand-alone, non-Anandamath version of ‘Vande Mataram’ in state events having become a legally binding custom by 2026, the Respondent No. 1 had no power to nullify the use of this ‘Vande Mataram’ and supplant it with a new 6-stanza song from Anandamath," the plea adds.

Mavoji has, therefore, called on the Court to quash the two MHA GOs issued in January and July 2026 as being unconstitutional and void. He has also sought a declaration that the two-stanza version of the Vande Mataram is India's national song.

The petitions were filed through advocate Vaibhav Choudhary and drawn by advocates G Mohan Gopal, Vaibhav Choudhary, Mayank Singh Rawat and Zaid Ahmed.

Notably, similar issues has been raised in a plea filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna. Krishna has challenged the validity of a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.

This amendment makes intentionally preventing the singing of the national song (Vande Mataram) or disrupting an assembly engaged in its singing punishable with up to three years in jail. The amendment was introduced shortly after the MHA's January and July GOs on the Vande Mataram were issued.

When Krishna's plea was heard last month, the Court had refrained from issuing formal notice in the matter following a request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (representing the Central government), who said that the issue of notice could sensationalise the matter.

The Court, however, asked the Central government to file its response within two weeks. At the time, the Court had also orally observed that a conscientious objector who does not recite one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram should not face criminal prosecution.

The plea by Krishna, as well as the latest pleas challenging the GOs on Vande Mataram, is listed next on November 30.

[Live Coverage]