SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (SC) on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, shared its observations on the discourse of National song and the debates surrounding it, stating that the democratically elected government may shape the scope and length of the National Song, but cannot violate individual and collective religious freedoms. The Apex court also stated that the government cannot subject the ‘conscientious objectors,’ who refuse to sing one or all the stanzas of the Vande Mataram to any penal consequences.
This decision from the apex court comes at a time when the national song and the recent amendment to the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act, had become major points of contention, in the public sphere as well as the political landscape of the country.
The observation was an outcome of a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana. Their joint bench asked the Central government to respond to a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the recent amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act—an amendment which was passed on July 30, 2026—within a period of two weeks. The petition was filed by famous Carnatic Vocalist TM Krishna.
Sharing his observations in the Court, Joymala Bagchi emphasized on the importance of upholding articles 25 and 26 of the Indian constitution. “What is the National song is not in dispute…It is for the democratically elected state to decide and give aspiration as to what the National song is, whether it should be two stanzas or four stanzas. BUt nobody can violate Article 25 and 26 (religious freedom) or subject a conscientious objector to penal consequences… It is for the conscientious objector to recite one or all stanzas of the National Song without subjecting himself to criminal prosecution,” said justice Joymala Bagchi while sharing his observations in the court.
See Also: BJP seeks action against AIMIM MLAs for ‘insulting’ national song
Citing the precedent set up by the supreme court’s earlier ruling in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel in 1986, Justice Bagchi emphasized on the necessity to uphold religious freedom and constitutional tolerance. Justice Joymala Bagchi said, “We would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the act of the statute. The declaration of law in Bijoe Emmanuel has till now not been questioned," reported Bar and Bench.
TM Krishna filed a petition to the apex court questioning the constitutional validity of the recent amendment to the section 3 of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The Petition also challenged the official directives issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, making it compulsory to sing the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at official, government or other cultural ceremonies.
The recent amendment in July 2026, penalizes whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the National Anthem or the National Song, or causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing, to three years of imprisonment, or impose a fine, or both.
Krishna in his petition argues that these provisions make it compulsory for citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas of the song, thereby translating the law from a regulation to a mandatory requirement. However, TM Krishna is not the first to have opposed the singing of the last four stanzas of the song. Individuals belonging to a different faith have always showcased their reservation for the same. Asaduddin Owaisi—member of Lok sabha—had opposed while this amendment bill was being passed, stating that there is an aspect of religious freedom that might be hurt.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store
