The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government seeking its response within two weeks to a petition filed by Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, heard arguments on the plea which contests the amendment that makes it an offence punishable with imprisonment up to three years, fine, or both to intentionally prevent the singing of Vande Mataram or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in its singing.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, during the hearing, referred to the Supreme Court's 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, which upheld the right of Jehovah's Witness schoolchildren to refrain from singing the national anthem on grounds of conscientious objection rooted in religious belief. He observed that the principle laid down in Bijoe Emmanuel continues to govern such matters and has not been questioned by the Court since.
Justice Bagchi stated that the law as declared in Bijoe Emmanuel should govern the interpretation of the amended statute, and indicated that a person who chooses not to sing one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram on conscientious grounds should not face criminal prosecution under the impugned provisions.
The petition challenges not only the constitutional validity of the amended Section 3 but also the directions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs requiring the rendition of the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions.
TM Krishna’s plea argues that the amendment compels citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas of the song, which contain references to Hindu deities such as Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, thereby transforming a patriotic symbol into a religiously infused invocation that conflicts with the secular character of the State.
The petition contends that the impugned State action goes beyond regulating protocol and effectively mandates a ceremony of assent to a symbol whose later stanzas are devotional in nature, thereby infringing fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1) of the Constitution.
Relying on the Bijoe Emmanuel precedent, the plea argues that criminal sanctions for non-participation in singing Vande Mataram fundamentally alter the nature of the obligation, converting what should be a matter of protocol into a compelled orthodoxy punishable by law.
The plea further highlights historical context, noting that the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram were originally composed as a standalone patriotic lyric, while the remaining four were added later when Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay incorporated the song into his novel Anandamath. It asserts that the later stanzas are musically and religiously distinct from the opening verses.
Reference was also made to the 1937 decision of the Congress Working Committee, which resolved to restrict national gatherings to the singing of only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram following objections raised by Muslim members who found the subsequent stanzas to be sectarian in character.
The petition describes the 2026 directions as formally neutral but substantively coded, alleging that they signal majoritarian religious alignment and impose expressive subordination on believers of minority faiths and other conscientious objectors.
TM Krishna has sought relief in the form of directions to strike down the amended Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and a declaration that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram constitute the National Song. Additionally, he has prayed for interim protection from the operation of the challenged provisions pending the final adjudication of his plea.
The Court, after hearing the parties, granted time to the Union government to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks and listed the matter for further hearing thereafter.