The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Union government on Carnatic musician TM Krishna’s challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, while observing that a person who does not sing Vande Mataram for religious reasons or as a conscientious objector should not face criminal consequences.
According to Live Law, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel case, which protected those who declined to sing the National Anthem on grounds of conscience, would continue to govern the issue.
The Court, however, made it clear that determining what constitutes the National Song was not for it to decide, saying that it was for the democratic state to determine whether two or all six stanzas of Vande Mataram constitute the National Song.
At the same time, the Bench said that a person exercising a conscientious objection or claiming protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution should not be subjected to penal consequences.
The Court’s observation came as senior advocate Dr S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, challenged the government’s decision to prescribe the complete six-stanza composition for official occasions.
According to Bar and Bench, Krishna’s petition challenges Section 3 of the 1971 Act as amended in 2026, along with MHA directions issued on January 28 and July 9 this year.
The amended provision provides for imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both for a person who intentionally prevents the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or causes disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing.
The petition argues that the MHA directions, when read together with the amended penal provision, effectively compel citizens to participate in the rendition of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at specified functions.
Krishna’s challenge centres particularly on the last four stanzas, which, according to the petition, contain references to Hindu deities including Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. The plea argues that compelling citizens to sing these portions amounts to compelled religious and ideological affirmation and violates the secular character of the Constitution.
The petition challenges the measures under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
It also argues that the expression “disturbance” in the amended Section 3 is vague and overbroad and could have a chilling effect on scholarly criticism, artistic expression and teaching concerning the historical and textual content of Vande Mataram.
A central plank of the petition is the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala, in which the Court protected three schoolchildren who had declined to sing the National Anthem on grounds of religious conscience, Live Law reported.
Krishna argues that the principle of freedom of conscience recognised in that judgment should also apply to his objection to singing the later stanzas of Vande Mataram.
Muralidhar submitted that the amended law does not define what the “National Song” is and argued that the ambiguity could lead to misuse. He also questioned the legal status of the MHA’s Office Memorandum, pointing out that it had not been gazetted.
Justice Bagchi observed that Vande Mataram was customarily understood as the National Song. Muralidhar responded that the established understanding was of the first two stanzas.
The senior counsel argued that the government had altered that understanding through an Office Memorandum and that the amendment had been introduced without sufficient national consensus.
During the arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that “secularism cannot be this narrow” while responding to the petitioner’s arguments.
The hearing also saw a sharp exchange after Mehta referred to “Naxalites” while discussing the law-making process. Muralidhar objected to the remark and asked the Solicitor General to withdraw it, saying such a comment did not behove a law officer.
Mehta refused to withdraw the remark, saying he was not apologetic about it. Muralidhar later accused him of “playing to the gallery”. The Bench said it was not taking note of the comments.
The petition also refers to the historical practice of limiting public rendition of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas and argues that this understanding was changed by the government’s 2026 directions.
The Supreme Court, while seeking the Centre’s response, has therefore not finally decided Krishna’s challenge. The petition remains pending before the Court, which will consider the parties’ submissions before determining the constitutional questions raised.
Krishna has sought a declaration that the amended Section 3, read with the MHA directions, violates fundamental rights. He has also sought clarification that only the first two stanzas constitute the National Song, besides interim protection pending final adjudication.
The petition was filed through Advocate-on-Record S Prasanna.
Case:TM Krishna v Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1183/2026.
( With inputs from Live Law, Bar and Bench)