The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which makes intentionally preventing the singing of Vande Mataram or disrupting an assembly engaged in its singing punishable with imprisonment of up to three years.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana directed the Union government to respond to the petition filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna within two weeks.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi referred to the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which protected three schoolchildren who stood respectfully during the National Anthem but did not sing it on account of their religious beliefs.
The judge observed that the principle laid down in Bijoe Emmanuel continues to hold the field. Justice Bagchi noted that the precedent set in Bijoe Emmanuel remains undisputed and expects it to guide the application of the statute
Carnatic musician TM Krishna has challenged Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, as amended in 2026, as well as directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) prescribing the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions.
The amended provision makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing, punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, fine, or both.
Krishna’s plea contends that the MHA directions go beyond prescribing ceremonial protocol and, read with the amended penal provision, effectively compel participation in the singing of the last four stanzas of Vande Mataram.
According to the petition, the later stanzas contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. It argues that imposing penal consequences for preventing or disrupting the singing, coupled with the directions prescribing the complete version, raises issues concerning freedom of conscience and religion.
The plea challenges the measures under Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
It also relies on the Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, in which the Supreme Court held that citizens cannot be compelled to sing the National Anthem when their refusal is based on genuine religious beliefs, provided they do not show disrespect to it.
Krishna has argued that attaching criminal consequences to the issue fundamentally alters its character from one of ceremonial protocol to one involving compelled participation.
‘National Song’ Not Defined in Statute
Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, also questioned the absence of a statutory definition of “National Song”.
He argued that a penal provision cannot operate on the basis of an undefined expression and questioned whether an office memorandum could determine the scope of a penal statute.
Justice Bagchi observed that although the Constitution does not expressly refer to a National Song in Article 51A, Vande Mataram has historically been recognised as the National Song.
Muralidhar, however, argued that the issue of which stanzas constitute the National Song could not be settled merely through an executive memorandum, particularly where criminal consequences are attached.
He also referred to the historical decision of the Congress Working Committee in 1937 to restrict the rendition of Vande Mataram at national gatherings to its first two stanzas following objections raised by Muslim members.
Centre Opposes Formal Notice
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, initially urged the Court not to issue formal notice, submitting that doing so could “create a sensation”.
The exchange between the lawyers also saw Muralidhar object to a reference made by the Solicitor General to the petitioner and “Naxalite” ideology. Muralidhar said such an expression was inappropriate for a law officer. The Solicitor General did not withdraw the remark.
Krishna has sought quashing of the amended Section 3, besides a declaration that only the first two of the six stanzas constitute the National Song.
He has also sought interim protection against the operation of the challenged provisions pending adjudication of the petition.
The post Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on plea against Vande Mataram penal provision; recalls Bijoe Emmanuel ruling appeared first on India Legal.