The Supreme Court’s ruling on the singing of Vande Mataram underlines the importance of freedom of conscience and of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution. The petition, filed by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna, challenged the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which prescribed penalties for preventing or obstructing the singing of Vande Mataram, or disturbing a gathering singing it. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said that those who refused to sing the song because it went against their conscience could not be punished. The Union government has made singing all six stanzas of the song mandatory at official and ceremonial functions. While accepting the first two stanzas as the National Song in 1937, the Congress had left out the last four as they were invocations to Hindu deities. The governments after Independence have continued this scheme.

Referring to its 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel vs State of Kerala, which protected schoolchildren who declined to sing the National Anthem on religious grounds while standing respectfully, the apex court reiterated that freedom of religion and expression includes the right to remain silent. It ruled that those who refuse to sing the song on grounds of conscience should not face criminal prosecution. It said that the new law would be governed by that judgment. The question was whether the State can force a person to demonstrate patriotism by prescribing a standard and tools for it. The government extended the song knowing that the extended section would hurt the religious sentiments of the minorities, and made its rendition a test of patriotism.

There is a difference between the refusal to sing the song and preventing its singing or causing disturbance at the function where it is sung. The law must recognise this difference, and it should not be lost in its implementation. The refusal to sing should not be construed as disturbance. The court said it would not rule on the decision to declare the full Vande Mataram as the National Song, which it said is in the domain of the executive and the legislature, but only on the imposition of the penalty. While it has done well to order that there should not be any penalty for not singing the song, it should also address the question of whether the National Song of a secular State should contain words that hurt the religious sentiments of some citizens. National symbols should embody shared values of a nation, and should not be used to target sections of the people. (Source: DH)