Courts cannot dictate national song, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the legality of penal consequences for not singing the national song due to religious belief or conscientious objection, but declined to rule whether 'Vande Mataram' should have two or six stanzas, saying courts cannot dictate what the national song should be. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought the Centre's reply in two weeks on Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna's petition. The amended law prescribes up to three years' jail for disrupting the song's rendition.

Written by AI from Times of India — Top · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 23 Sept 2026, 5:53 am IST

Source

Times of India — Top · read the original report ↗

#supreme court#vande mataram#national song#religious freedom#t m krishna

Desk check · compared with the source

What the desk checked (5)

SC agreed to examine penal consequences for not singing the national song on grounds of religious belief or conscientious objection. — Attributed in source to a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana; figure appears in source.
The court declined to decide whether 'Vande Mataram' should have two or six stanzas, leaving it to Parliament. — Supported by direct quotes from the bench in the source.
The amended law prescribes up to three years in jail for disrupting or preventing rendition of the song. — Figure appears in source; no statute section cited.
The 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala judgment remains the law of the land and was never challenged. — Stated by the bench as per the source; internally consistent.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the petition sought sensationalism and referred to 'diktat of Naxalite ideas'. — Attributed to Mehta during the hearing as reported in the source.

Written by AI from Times of India — Top · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Political Analyst

The Supreme Court has split this case in a politically careful way — leaving the symbolic question of what the national song is and how many stanzas it should have to Parliament, while agreeing to examine only the penal consequences for those who do not sing it. That spares the government a setback on the symbolism while keeping judicial pressure on enforcement. Both sides can therefore claim the part of the order that suits them.

By refusing to adjudicate the choice of national song, the bench reinforced the argument that a democratically elected government decides such matters — politically a favourable signal for the Centre.
At the same time, the bench's reminder that the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel ruling remains the law of the land gives ammunition to those framing this around Article 25 and conscientious objection.
The debate now narrows to the amendment carrying up to three years in jail, which is precisely why the solicitor general objected that an argument lost in Parliament is being revived in court.
The heated exchange, including the retort about law-making not bowing to the 'diktat of Naxalite ideas', shows this is not a purely legal dispute but part of a wider political contest over nationalism and minority rights.
By sidestepping the symbol and taking up only penalty, the court appears to have found a route to limited protection of individual conscience without confronting national sentiment.

What to watch — The Centre's reply within two weeks — whether it softens or firmly defends the penal provision will set the next political direction.

The story does not establish the eventual outcome of the case, whether the penal provision will survive, or how political parties will formally respond.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 4 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Parliament has amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act to cover 'Vande Mataram', making disruption of the rendition of all six stanzas punishable with up to three years in jail. Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna moved the Supreme Court arguing the last four stanzas invoke Hindu goddesses and may offend religious beliefs of communities whose faith bars idol worship, and that the song should be confined to the two stanzas adopted by the Congress Working Committee in 1937. A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana agreed to examine only the penal consequences for conscientious objectors, refusing to decide how many stanzas the national song should have.

Key facts

The amended law prescribes punishment of up to three years in jail for disrupting or preventing rendition of the national song.
The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana sought the Centre's reply within two weeks on T M Krishna's petition.
The court declined to adjudicate whether 'Vande Mataram' should have two or six stanzas, saying it was best left to Parliament's wisdom.
The SC held the field is occupied by its August 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala judgment, that no one can be penalised for not singing the national anthem if respect is shown by standing in silence.
The bench said the Bijoe Emmanuel ruling has never been challenged and remains the law of the land.
The court said a conscientious objector who does not sing one or all stanzas of the national song would not face criminal prosecution.
Senior advocate S Muralidhar argued the song must be confined to two stanzas, as done by the Congress Working Committee in 1937 due to strong opposition by Muslims whose faith does not permit idol worship.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said law-making could not be made subservient to the 'diktat of Naxalite ideas' and urged the court not to issue notice, assuring the Centre would file a response.

Timeline

1937Congress Working Committee confines 'Vande Mataram' to two stanzas amid strong opposition from Muslims on grounds of idol worship.
August 1986Supreme Court's Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala judgment: no penalty for not singing the national anthem if respect is shown by standing in silence.
Recent (date not stated in the source)Parliament amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act; disrupting rendition of the song attracts up to three years' jail.
Tuesday (date not stated in the source)SC agrees to examine penal consequences for conscientious objectors, declines to rule on number of stanzas, seeks Centre's reply in two weeks.

Who has a stake

T M Krishna, Carnatic vocalist and petitioner — Seeks to restrict the national song to two stanzas, arguing the last four invoke Hindu goddesses and may offend some religious beliefs.
Supreme Court bench (CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi, V Mohana) — Must balance Article 25 rights and conscientious objection against not second-guessing national sentiment or dictating the national song.
Union government / Solicitor General Tushar Mehta — Defends the amended law and Parliament's competence; must file a response within two weeks.
Parliament — Asserted as the democratically elected authority to declare the national song and articulate national aspirations.
Religious minorities and conscientious objectors — Face possible penal consequences under the amended law for not singing all stanzas; rely on Bijoe Emmanuel protection.

Why it matters

The case tests where the line falls between the state's power to define national symbols and an individual's freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25. By reaffirming Bijoe Emmanuel while refusing to decide the stanza question, the Court signals judicial restraint on symbolic nationalism but continued protection against criminal punishment for silent dissent. The outcome will shape how the amended Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act is enforced.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala (August 1986): no penalty for not singing the national anthem if respect is shown by standing in silence.
Article 25: freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion — invoked by the SC bench in this case.
Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act was amended to cover 'Vande Mataram'; up to three years' jail for disrupting its rendition.
Congress Working Committee confined 'Vande Mataram' to two stanzas in 1937.
Bench: CJI Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana; petitioner: Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna.
Justice Bagchi cited the US Constitution's strong secularism alongside the word 'God' in the American national anthem.

Mains framing

The dispute over whether 'Vande Mataram' comprises two or six stanzas raises a classic tension in Indian constitutionalism between collective national symbolism and individual freedom of conscience. The petitioner's case rests on history (the Congress Working Committee's 1937 decision to confine the song to two stanzas after Muslim objections to invocations of goddesses) and on the argument that mandating all six stanzas, with up to three years' imprisonment for disrupting the rendition, is neither inclusive nor consistent with secularism. The Supreme Court's response is instructive: it treated the identity of the national song as a matter for the democratically elected legislature, declining to 'second-guess the national sentiment', while holding that the Bijoe Emmanuel principle of 1986 — unchallenged and still the law of the land — protects a conscientious objector from criminal prosecution for not singing. Justice Bagchi's analogy to the invocation of 'God' in the American national anthem suggests that reverent religious imagery in a national song does not by itself defeat secularism. The way forward the Court itself charts is narrow and rights-focused: the Centre must respond within two weeks and the state must apply the amended Act in a manner that does not violate Article 25 or the right of conscientious objection, leaving questions of content and symbolism to Parliament.

Key terms

Vande Mataram: India's national song; the dispute is whether it comprises two stanzas or all six, the last four of which invoke Hindu goddesses.
Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala (1986): Supreme Court ruling that a person cannot be penalised for not singing the national anthem if respect is shown by standing in silence.
Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act: Law penalising disrespect to national symbols; as amended, it prescribes up to three years' jail for disrupting rendition of the national song.
Article 25: Constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Conscientious objector: A person who refuses to perform an act on grounds of conscience or belief; the SC said such a person would not face criminal prosecution here.
Sine qua non: An indispensable condition — used by Justice Bagchi to describe secularism for constitutional governance.

Practice questions

Critically examine the Supreme Court's position that courts cannot dictate what the national song should be, while still protecting conscientious objectors from penal consequences.
Discuss the relevance of the Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) judgment to contemporary laws penalising disrespect to national symbols.
Does mandating the rendition of all six stanzas of 'Vande Mataram' conflict with Article 25 and the constitutional mandate of secularism? Argue both sides.

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyNo rule bars airport operators from running airlines: Minister →

← All stories