Supreme Court Tells Centre: No Criminal Punishment for Those Who Refuse to Sing Vande Mataram on Conscience Grounds
The Supreme Court has told the Centre that people who refuse to sing “Vande Mataram” because of religious belief or conscientious objection should not face criminal punishment. The observation came during a hearing on a petition challenging the 2026 amendment that extended penal protection under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act to the National Song.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, made clear that its immediate concern is the criminal consequence attached to refusing to sing the song, rather than deciding what the National Song should contain. The court has sought the Centre’s response to the challenge.
Justice Bagchi said the choice of the National Song and the number of stanzas to be recognised are matters for the democratically elected government. The court indicated that it would not decide whether the official rendition should consist of two, four or six stanzas.
The key constitutional issue before the court is whether a person who objects to singing Vande Mataram on grounds of conscience or religion can nevertheless be subjected to penal consequences. The bench said that the existing constitutional protection recognised in an earlier Supreme Court judgment must be taken into account.
The court referred specifically to its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. In that case, the Supreme Court protected schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it because of their religious convictions. The court’s present observations indicate that the principle established in that judgment remains relevant to the amended law.
The 2026 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act 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 causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing. The petition argues that the provision could have consequences for people who decline to participate on grounds of conscience.
Carnatic vocalist T. M. Krishna is challenging the amended law as well as Ministry of Home Affairs directions concerning the rendition of the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified official, ceremonial and cultural occasions. His petition raises questions under constitutional protections relating to equality, freedom of expression, personal liberty, freedom of conscience and religious freedom.
Krishna’s legal challenge particularly focuses on the final four stanzas, which his petition says contain references to Hindu deities. His side argues that compelling their rendition could conflict with the constitutional protection of freedom of conscience and religion. These are arguments advanced by the petitioner and remain subject to the court’s eventual determination.
The petition also questions the statutory definition of the “National Song” and argues that the amended law does not clearly specify which version or stanzas fall within the penal provision. The petitioner’s counsel further challenged the use of executive directions to prescribe the complete six-stanza rendition.
The Centre has opposed the challenge. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued during the hearing that the issue should not be viewed narrowly through the question of secularism and maintained that Parliament had acted through the legislative process. A heated exchange also took place between the Solicitor General and senior advocate S. Muralidhar, who represents Krishna, over remarks made during the proceedings.
The Supreme Court has therefore drawn a distinction between two separate questions: who decides the content and status of the National Song, and whether criminal law can punish a person who respectfully declines to sing it because of conscience or religious belief. The court has indicated that the first question belongs to the elected government, while the second raises constitutional issues that remain open to judicial scrutiny.
The proceedings do not yet amount to a final judgment striking down the amended law. The Supreme Court is examining the scope of the penal provision and has asked the Centre to respond while indicating that the Bijoe Emmanuel principle should continue to govern the protection of conscientious objectors. The next stage of the case will determine how that constitutional protection interacts with the amended law.
