Stories
Supreme Court: Not Singing Vande Mataram Not Criminal Act
- •The Supreme Court observed that refraining from singing Vande Mataram due to genuine religious beliefs or conscientious objections should not lead to criminal action.
- •The court referenced the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, which protects individuals from being compelled to recite the National Anthem if it conflicts with their religious faith.
- •The legal challenge stems from a writ petition filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna against the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
- •The 2026 amendment introduced penalties, including up to three years imprisonment, for intentionally preventing the rendition of the National Song or causing disturbance.
- •The petitioner argued that stanzas three to six of Vande Mataram contain invocations of Hindu deities, and forcing citizens to sing them violates constitutional rights.
Key Questions Answered
Musician TM Krishna filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, which extended criminal liability to Vande Mataram, arguing that penalizing non-singing and mandating stanzas with religious references violates fundamental freedoms.
The apex court referenced its landmark 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, affirming that individuals cannot be compelled to recite national anthems or songs if doing so conflicts with their genuine religious faith or conscience.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed to examine whether penalizing non-singing infringes upon constitutional freedoms and directed the Union Government to file its official response within two weeks.
