Full Breakdown
Supreme Court Hearing on Vande Mataram Amendment Sparks Constitutional Debate
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
On September 22, 2026 the Supreme Court heard a writ petition filed by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna challenging the 2026 amendment to the *Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971* and Home Ministry directions that require the six-stanza version of *Vande Mataram* at official occasions. The bench—Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana—considered whether a person who refuses to sing any or all stanzas on religious grounds can be criminally prosecuted.
Background & Context
The amendment, assented on August 6, 2026 and operationalised on February 6, 2026, adds the “National Song” to Section 3 of the 1971 Act, criminalising anyone who *intentionally prevents* its singing or *causes disturbance* to an assembly doing so, with up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. It also mandates that *Vande Mataram* precede the national anthem when performed together.
Krishna argues that the last four stanzas invoke Hindu deities and that compulsory rendition breaches Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21, 25 and 26. The petition cites the **1986 judgment in *Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala***, which protected schoolchildren who stood but did not sing the anthem on religious grounds.
Data & Statistics
- Penalty: imprisonment up to three years, fine, or both.
- Presidential assent: August 6, 2026.
- Home Ministry directive: effective February 6, 2026, prescribing a 3-minute-10-second rendition of all six stanzas.
- Key hearing dates: petition filed September 22, 2026; response deadline set for October 12, 2026.
Official Statements & Responses
- Chief Justice Surya Kant reminded counsel to keep arguments within the constitutional issue and noted that defining the “National Song” is a matter for the democratic State, not the Court.
Verbatim Quotes
- “To have a mind of one's own is not to be a Naxalite.” — Justice Bagchi
- “It is for the democratic state to decide what is the national song, whether two stanza or four stanza. But nobody who feels an infraction of Art. 25, 26 rights or a conscientious objector would be subjected to [penal consequences],” — Justice Bagchi
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The bench did not take note of the “Naxalite” remark, restricting discussion to the constitutional issue, so no formal record of that exchange appears in the judgment.
- The definition of “National Song” remains unsettled; the Court indicated it is not within its remit to decide the number of stanzas, leaving that to the executive.
- The petition’s claim that the amendment’s term “disturbance” is vague and over-broad has not yet been addressed.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to file its response within two weeks and has scheduled the response deadline for October 12, 2026. The eventual ruling will determine whether the penal provisions can be applied to individuals who, on genuine religious or conscientious grounds, refuse to sing any or all stanzas of *Vande Mataram*.