Vande Mataram Row: Supreme Court Weighs Mandatory Recitation Orders
The Supreme Court examines challenges to government orders mandating the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram and penalties for obstruction.
The Supreme Court of India has stepped into a complex legal battle regarding the mandatory recitation of the national song, Vande Mataram mandatory recitation. The apex court is currently examining several petitions that challenge directives issued by the Central Government, which insist on the singing and playing of a specific six-stanza version of the song at designated events.
The Core of the Legal Conflict
The proceedings, heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, center on orders released by the Ministry of Home Affairs on January 28 and July 9, 2026. These orders mandate the use of the six-stanza version of the song, which includes verses that invoke Hindu deities, specifically Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati.
The petitions have been filed by a diverse group of individuals, including musician T.M. Krishna, former Kerala IAS officer Balakrishnan Satyabhama Mavoji, and Buddhist scholar B.D. Borkar. The petitioners argue that forcing the recitation of these specific verses contradicts the secular nature of the Indian Constitution and infringes upon the religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26.
Criminal Penalties and the Law
Beyond the act of singing, the legal challenge extends to a 2026 amendment of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. This amendment introduces strict penalties for those who obstruct the singing of the song, with potential punishments including fines or imprisonment for up to three years.
Representing the petitioners, advocate S. Muralidhar argued that the state should not be able to criminally prosecute citizens who refuse to participate in the recitation based on their personal conscience or religious beliefs.
Precedents and Court Observations
During a previous hearing on September 22, 2026, the Supreme Court clarified its stance. While the bench stated it would not take upon itself the task of defining what the "national song" should be, it expressed a willingness to determine if individuals who abstain from singing on religious or conscientious grounds are entitled to constitutional protection.
To guide this determination, the Court referenced the landmark 1986 case of Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala, a precedent that protected individuals from being punished for refusing to sing the national anthem.
Competing Demands and the Delhi High Court
The legal landscape is further complicated by a parallel matter currently pending before the Delhi High Court. Petitioner Ashwani Dubey has requested that 'Vande Mataram' be elevated to a status equal to the national anthem, 'Jana Gana Mana,' and be made compulsory across all educational institutions. The petitioners in the Supreme Court have sought to have this related matter transferred to the apex court.
As Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represents the Centre, the Supreme Court continues to deliberate on whether the mandatory singing of the 'Anandmath' six-stanza version can be enforced without violating fundamental rights, and whether those who remain silent can be accused of insulting the national song.