No penal action for refusing to sing ‘Vande Mataram’ on religious grounds: Supreme Court

Mangalore Today News Network

New Delhi, Sep 22, 2026: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that no person who has a genuine religious objection protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution can face penal consequences for refusing to sing certain stanzas of the national song, Vande Mataram.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging a Centre-issued circular requiring the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram. The petition also challenges an amendment that places the national song on par with the national anthem under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.

Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, argued that four of the six stanzas contain references to Hindu deities and that making their singing compulsory would infringe the secular character of the Constitution.

Muralidhar contended that the amendment was arbitrary and interfered with individual liberty. He also questioned the legal basis for imposing any penal consequences, pointing out that the original law did not refer to a national song.

“They have introduced the expression ‘national song’ but the Act does not define what a national song is. The Office Memorandum is not even gazetted. They don’t cite any provision,” Muralidhar submitted.

He argued that the government could not impose penal consequences through what he described as a vague provision and questioned the manner in which the decision had been taken without wider public consultation.

Justice Bagchi observed that Vande Mataram has historically been understood as the national song and said courts could not second-guess the national aspiration behind its designation.

However, the judge made a distinction between the status of the song and an individual’s right to refrain from singing it.

“Person can decide whether to sing one or four stanzas. There can’t be penal consequences,” Justice Bagchi said.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, Justice Bagchi said that the law would govern the issue and observed that a person who genuinely believes that singing the song infringes rights under Articles 25 and 26 should not face penal consequences.

During the hearing, the bench also discussed the argument concerning the religious references in the song. Justice Bagchi referred to the use of the word “God” in the American national anthem and questioned whether the presence of religious references by itself would affect the secular character of the Constitution.

Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that anyone familiar with history would know what the national song is.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the government’s position and argued that “constitutionalism can’t be this narrow”, while supporting the legislative process behind the changes.

The hearing became contentious after Mehta remarked that “law-making should not be as per Naxalites”.

Muralidhar objected to the remark, saying it was unnecessary and particularly inappropriate as the proceedings were being broadcast live. He sought its withdrawal and later registered a strong protest after Mehta said he was not sorry.

Mehta subsequently clarified that his point was that legislative decision-making must remain within the Constitution and cannot be dictated by armed or extra-constitutional means.

Justice Bagchi noted that the court had not taken the remark on record and stressed that constitutional courts derive their credibility from ensuring that even persons accused of serious offences are dealt with through the rule of law rather than “kangaroo courts”.

The bench sought the Centre’s response and indicated that it would examine the question of whether penal consequences can follow from refusal to sing Vande Mataram. At the same time, the court indicated that the designation of Vande Mataram as the national song itself was not a matter for judicial second-guessing. The Supreme Court’s listing for September 22 confirms that the bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was sitting in Court No. 1.