Supreme Court Examines Penal Consequences for Refusing to Sing Vande Mataram
The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether a person who refuses to sing “Vande Mataram” on grounds of conscience or religious belief can face criminal consequences. The issue arose during the hearing of a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna challenging the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, indicated that the central constitutional question before it is not whether Vande Mataram should be the National Song, but whether statutory protection for the song can result in criminal liability for an individual who does not sing it. The court has sought the Centre’s response.
The controversy follows Parliament’s 2026 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. The amended provision extends criminal protection to the National Song alongside the National Anthem. It provides for imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both for intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or intentionally causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court referred to its landmark 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. In that case, the court protected schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it because of their religious convictions. The current bench indicated that the principle established in that judgment would be relevant while considering the rights of conscientious objectors in the Vande Mataram case.
Justice Bagchi indicated that a person exercising a conscientious objection should not simply face criminal consequences for declining to recite one or more stanzas. The court is therefore examining the interaction between the amended penal provision and constitutional protections concerning freedom of conscience and religion.
The petition also challenges the Centre’s directions concerning the rendition of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at official and mass functions. Krishna’s challenge argues that the later stanzas contain references to Hindu deities and that compelling their recitation raises questions involving freedom of conscience, religious freedom, freedom of expression and secularism.
The question of whether the National Song consists of two or six stanzas was also debated. The petitioner’s side argued that Vande Mataram had historically been understood in the national context primarily through its first two stanzas, while the Centre defended the government’s approach. The bench indicated that determining the country’s national symbols and associated aspirations is principally a matter for the elected government, rather than something the court intends to decide in this proceeding.
The court also heard arguments concerning the language of the amended penal law. Krishna’s counsel, Senior Advocate S. Muralidhar, questioned whether criminal liability could be imposed without clearly defining what constitutes the “National Song” for purposes of the offence. The bench similarly raised the concern that a penal statute should not operate through vague or undefined terms.
The latest proceedings mark a significant change from an earlier 2026 challenge to the Centre’s directions. In that matter, the Supreme Court had declined to intervene because the government’s directions were advisory and did not prescribe a penalty for failing to sing Vande Mataram. The present case arises after Parliament subsequently introduced statutory penal protection for the National Song.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that the amended law is unconstitutional, nor has it finally determined the scope of the obligation to sing Vande Mataram. The immediate issue before the court is whether criminal consequences can constitutionally apply to a person who refuses to sing because of conscience or religious belief. The Centre’s response is expected to shape the next stage of the proceedings.
