Supreme Court Examines Criminalisation of Not Singing Full Vande Mataram

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, has asked the Union government to respond to a petition seeking to strike down the 2026 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The amendment makes it an offence to refuse to sing the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram or to cause a disturbance during its rendition. Petitioner Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna argues that the last four stanzas invoke Hindu deities and that compulsory singing breaches the Constitution’s secular character.

Is not singing Vande Mataram punishable offence? Supreme Court to examine Deccan ChronicleCarnatic musician T M Krishna moves Supreme Court against Centre's directive to sing six stanzas of Vande Mataram Bar & Bench

The challenge echoes the Supreme Court’s 1986 *Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala* judgment, which protected schoolchildren who declined to sing the National Anthem on conscience grounds. The 2026 amendment linked Vande Mataram to the same honour accorded to the Anthem, citing the Constituent Assembly’s 1950 observation that the song should receive equal respect.

Deccan Chronicle

• Amended Section 3 (2026) provides for imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both for anyone who intentionally prevents the singing of the National Song or causes a disturbance.

Carnatic musician T M Krishna moves Supreme Court against Centre's directive to sing six stanzas of Vande Mataram

• The amendment applies to the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram, whereas historically only the first two stanzas have been used officially.

Carnatic musician T M Krishna moves Supreme Court against Centre's directive to sing six stanzas of Vande Mataram

• The petition cites MHA orders dated Jan 28 and July 9, 2026 directing the six-stanza version at mass programmes.

Deccan Chronicle

• Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the law reflects the constitutional process and rejected the claim that it serves a “majoritarian religious message.” He warned that a formal notice could “sensationalise” the matter.

Bar & Bench

• Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, representing Krishna, said the amendment fails to define “national song,” creating a “serious lacuna” that could be misused, and criticised reliance on an un-gazetted Office Memorandum.

Bar & Bench

Muralidhar highlighted two procedural concerns: the absence of a statutory definition of “national song,” which he said renders the provision vague, and the haste with which the amendment was introduced, bypassing broader consensus. He warned that without clear definition the law could be applied arbitrarily. The Solicitor General’s reference to “Naxalite” mindsets was rebuked as unbecoming of a law officer.

Deccan Chronicle

• “It is a penal statute. And a penal statute can't be in the realm of vagueness. You don't even define what a national song is in the statute, and you make it a punishable offence,” — Muralidhar

Bar & Bench

• “Parliament, I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants,” — Solicitor General Tushar Mehta

Bar & Bench

The Court has directed the Centre to file a written response. No formal notice has been issued, and the bench will consider the constitutional protection afforded to conscientious objectors before ruling on the amendment’s merits.

Deccan Chronicle