Supreme Court Expects No Penal Consequences For Religious Objections To Vande Mataram: Centre Asked To Respond To TM Krishna Plea

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday asked the Union Government to file its response to a petition filed by renowned Carnatic musician TM Krishna, challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana observed that the landmark precedent set in the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel case remains the law of the land, protecting conscientious objectors who refrain from singing the song for religious reasons from facing criminal prosecution.

The bench clarified that while deciding what constitutes the "National Song" falls within the state's domain, individuals refusing to sing it on genuine religious grounds protected under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution should not face penal action.

Constitutional Challenge To Six-Stanza Order

The legal challenge targets Section 3 of the amended 1971 Act alongside Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) orders issued on 28 January 2026 and 9 July 2026. The 2026 statutory amendment replaced Section 3 to impose imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both for intentionally preventing or causing disturbance to the mass singing of the National Anthem or National Song.

In his petition filed under Article 32 through Advocate-on-Record S Prasanna, TM Krishna argued that the MHA directives mandate the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at official, ceremonial, and cultural events. The plea stresses that the final four stanzas contain explicit references to Hindu deities such as Durga, Lakshmi, and Saraswati. Forcing citizens to recite these stanzas amounts to compelled religious and ideological affirmation, eroding the foundational secular character of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, representing the petitioner, pointed out that the amendment fails to define the specific text of the National Song, leaving room for arbitrary enforcement. He noted that the historic national consensus established by the Indian National Congress in 1937—endorsed by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, and Subhas Chandra Bose—restricted public renditions strictly to the first two stanzas to respect non-Hindu citizens' religious sentiments.

Heated Exchanges Over Naxalite Remarks

The courtroom witnessed sharp exchanges when Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta opposed the petition, stating that "secularism cannot be this narrow" and urging the bench not to issue a formal notice to prevent "sensationalising" the issue. The Solicitor General remarked that "law making cannot be as per Naxalites idea", drawing immediate objections from Dr Muralidhar, who urged him to retract the statement.

Dr Muralidhar stated that such remarks did not suit a law officer and accused the government counsel of playing to the gallery. The Solicitor General declined to withdraw his comment, maintaining that his reference applied to those who refused to adhere to the constitutional law-making process.

Justice Bagchi noted that while the state possesses the authority to choose national symbols, democratic rights must protect freedom of conscience. The court declined to issue a formal notice at this stage, directing the Union to submit its response while placing reliance on the protection guaranteed under the Bijoe Emmanuel precedent.

Shift In Legal Position

The petition acknowledges that the Supreme Court had previously refused to entertain a challenge against the MHA directions in March 2026 under Muhammed Sayeed Noori v. Union of India, as no penal provisions existed at that point. However, the enactment of the 2026 amendment introduced explicit criminal sanctions, fundamentally altering the legal backdrop.

TM Krishna's petition contends that the amended provision violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It seeks an explicit declaration that Section 3 of the amended Act cannot be used to criminalise conscientious objectors, alongside clarification that only the first two stanzas constitute the official National Song.