Person who does not sing all stanzas of Vande Mataram should not face criminal action: Supreme Court observes

The Supreme on Tuesday asked the Union government to respond to a plea 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..A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana asked the government to respond to Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna's petition within two weeks.Pertinently, Justice Bagchi remarked during the hearing that the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the Bijoe Emmanuel case protecting those who choose not to sing the national anthem continues to hold the field.Hence, a conscientious objector who does not recite one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram should not face criminal prosecution, the judge said."We would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the act of the statute. The declaration of law in Bijoe Emmanuel has till now not been questioned," the judge said..Krishna moved the Court questioning Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (the law protecting national symbols), as amended in 2026. His plea also challenged the directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs requiring the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram to be sung at specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions.The amended law makes it punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, fine, or both to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.Krishna has argued that the Centre's directions go beyond regulating protocol and that the amendment effectively compels citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas. As the stanzas contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, the government action compels "a ceremony of assent to a symbol whose last four stanzas, Stanzas 3 to 6, are expressly devotional, deity-invoking and non-secular," the plea states.Krishna has argued that this compulsion is violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15(1) (protection against discrimination), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (life and personal liberty) and 25(1) (freedom of conscience and religion) of the Constitution..Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, contended that since the law does not define what the 'national song' is, there could be a misuse of the penal provisions. "The Act does not define what a national song is. It is a serious lacuna in the law, and it can be misused. Office memorandum, which is not even gazetted. I don't understand under what provision. They don't cite any provision. They simply issue an office memorandum," he said.A penal statute cannot be vague, he underscored."It is a penal statute. And 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," Muralidhar added.At this, Justice Bagchi said,"Even the Constitution didn't mention the national song in Article 51A. By customs and usage, the national song has always been mentioned and understood as Vande Mataram, with the two stanzas."Muralidhar submitted that for almost 80 years, people were told to only sing two stanzas of the song and that any change should come only by consensus. He also said that there cannot be penal consequences for not singing the national song."So for the first time, after almost 80 years, they are trying to tell us it's not two stanzas. This is why, when you use the adjective "national", there has to be some building of a public opinion," he added. He further said that government cannot rely on an office memorandum to impose consequences of a penal statute."No, no. So let's do this. As long as the government is able to clarify that they will not rely on this kind of some office memorandum to give meaning to a statute, and the consequences of imprisonment, punishment and all of that, by relying on some office memorandum, let them clarify it. Because they were in such a great hurry to introduce this amendment without thinking it through. And this is most unfortunate. See, the original law, there was no mention of a national song. National song requires an official declaration in the form of a notification," he said..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, asked the Court not to issue a formal notice to the government, stating that it may sensationalise the matter."Let me be given a copy. Notice will create a sensation, which appears to be the object," he said.Mehta also said that the petitioner cannot act as a moral guardian of the nation. He added that the petitioner was trying to play to the gallery and law made by parliament reflects the Constitutional way."Parliament, I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants," Mehta said.This led to strong objections by Muralidhar."Why is a law officer using these kinds of expressions? It doesn't behove a law officer. I have never heard a law officer use these kinds of expressions," Muralidhar shot back.The SG, however, refused to withdraw his 'naxalite' remark..Vande Mataram case: Heated exchange between S Muralidhar, SG Tushar Mehta in Supreme Court over 'Naxalite' remark.Krishna has sought directions to strike down the amended Section 3 and declare that only the first two of the six stanzas of Vande Mataram constitute the National Song. Additionally, he has sought interim protection from the operation of the challenged provisions pending a final decision on his plea.The plea relies on the Supreme Court's 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, where the Court protected schoolchildren who stood up respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing it because of their religious beliefs..[Read Live Coverage]