The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 22, observed that a person who chooses not to sing the National Song Vande Mataram for religious or conscientious reasons should not face criminal consequences, referring to the landmark Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala judgment. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a petition filed by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. According to LiveLaw, the court indicated that the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, which protected the right of schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing it on religious grounds, continues to hold the field. Justice Bagchi observed that a person whose conscience or religious beliefs are protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution should not be subjected to criminal consequences merely for not singing the National Song. Krishna has challenged the amended law as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs’ directions concerning the singing of the complete six stanzas of Vande Mataram at official functions. The 2026 amendment extends penal protection under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act to the National Song. It provides for punishment of up to three years for intentionally preventing the singing of Vande Mataram or disrupting an assembly engaged in singing it.
The petition particularly raises concerns over the later stanzas of the song and their religious references. SC: State To Decide Form Of National Song The Supreme Court made it clear that it would not enter into the question of what constitutes the National Song, whether its official version should contain two or six stanzas, or what national sentiments should be associated with it. The bench said such questions concerning national symbols and their form fall within the domain of the elected government in a democracy. The court’s focus, instead, is on whether criminal liability can be imposed on a person who does not participate in singing because of a genuine religious or conscientious objection.
Court Refers To Bijoe Emmanuel Judgment
The bench referred to the Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which involved three Jehovah’s Witness children who had respectfully stood during the National Anthem but refused to sing it because of their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court had held that forcing them to sing violated their constitutional protections, including freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and freedom of conscience under Article 25. Justice Bagchi indicated that the principle established in that judgment remains the law and has not been questioned.
Centre Asked To Respond
The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response to Krishna’s petition. The bench, however, was reportedly not inclined to issue a formal notice at this stage and confined its consideration to the question of penal consequences. The court is not currently examining the religious interpretation of the lyrics or deciding whether Vande Mataram should comprise two or six stanzas. The latest proceedings come months after the Supreme Court, in March 2026, had declined to entertain a challenge to the Centre’s earlier directions, observing that the circular was advisory and carried no penal consequences for those who chose not to sing the National Song. The Indian Express reported that the court had then said the plea was premature in the absence of any instance of coercion or punishment. The present proceedings, however, bring the question of criminal liability for non-participation directly before the court.
