🗞️ Why in News A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, on 22 September 2026 sought the Union government’s response to a petition by Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna challenging the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, read with Ministry of Home Affairs directions on the singing of Vande Mataram. During the hearing, the Bench observed that while the State may decide what the National Song is, conscientious objectors should not face criminal prosecution, and that the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment still holds.
What the Law Now Says
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 protects the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem. The 2026 amendment, which received presidential assent in August 2026 (see our coverage of the Bill), extended Section 3 to the National Song, Vande Mataram. As amended, intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or the National Song, or causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing, is punishable with imprisonment up to three years, a fine, or both.
Separately, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued directions in January 2026 and a circular in July 2026 requiring the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram to be sung at specified government, ceremonial and cultural occasions.
The Two Positions Before the Court
| The petitioner | The Union government, at the first hearing | |
|---|---|---|
| Core claim | The amended Section 3, read with the MHA directions, compels mass singing of all six stanzas under penal sanction | The Solicitor General said Vande Mataram has been the National Song since before Independence, and that Parliament legislated through the constitutional process |
| On the stanzas | Stanzas three to six are devotional and invoke deities; compelling them violates freedom of conscience | No written reply yet; the Centre has two weeks to respond |
| On the law’s text | The Act does not define “National Song”; a penal law cannot be vague; an office memorandum that is not gazetted cannot give content to a crime | The Solicitor General asked the Court not to issue formal notice, arguing it would sensationalise the matter |
| Rights invoked | Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21 and 25(1), and secularism as a basic feature | To be set out in the reply |
| Relief sought | Strike down the amended Section 3; declare that only the first two stanzas constitute the National Song; interim protection | To be set out in the reply |
What the Bench Said
These were observations at the first hearing, not a judgment:
- The State’s role: it is for the democratically elected State to decide what the National Song is, whether two stanzas or four; Justice Bagchi added that customs and usage could also identify it.
- The limit: nobody can infringe Articles 25 and 26 (freedom of religion) or subject a conscientious objector to penal consequences; a person may recite one or all stanzas without facing criminal prosecution.
- Precedent: the law declared in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) still governs and has not been questioned.
- Secularism: Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that a religious reference in a national symbol need not by itself offend secularism, noting that the United States’ national anthem mentions God.
- Next step: the Bench, which also included Justice V. Mohana, asked the Union government to respond within two weeks.
The Constitutional Anchors
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986). Three children belonging to the Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from school in Kerala for not singing the National Anthem, although they stood respectfully while it was sung. The Supreme Court held that the expulsion violated their rights under Article 19(1)(a) (which includes the right to remain silent) and Article 25(1), that there was no law compelling anyone to sing, and that standing respectfully showed no disrespect. Its closing line is often quoted: “our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our Constitution practices tolerance; let us not dilute it.”
Article 51A(a). The Fundamental Duty is to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. The National Song is not mentioned. Fundamental Duties are not enforceable in courts by themselves.
The Constituent Assembly, 24 January 1950. In a statement read by Dr Rajendra Prasad, the Assembly declared that Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem and that Vande Mataram, which had played a historic part in the freedom struggle, shall be honoured equally with it. This was a statement, not an article of the Constitution.
Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India. In 2016 the Supreme Court made playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls mandatory by an interim order; in 2018 it modified the order to make it optional.
History of the Song
Vande Mataram was written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and appeared in his novel Anandamath (1882). Rabindranath Tagore sang it at the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress in Calcutta, and it became a rallying cry of the Swadeshi movement after the 1905 Partition of Bengal. In 1937 the Congress Working Committee resolved that only the first two stanzas would be sung at national gatherings, which is the practice the petitioner asks the Court to recognise.
The Question the Court Will Have to Answer
The case turns on a gap between the text and the practice. The amended Section 3 penalises preventing the singing, or disturbing an assembly that is singing. It does not, on its face, penalise declining to sing. The petitioner’s concern is that executive directions, which require all six stanzas, will be read together with the penal provision so that non-participation is treated as an offence. Bijoe Emmanuel suggests that respectful silence is not an insult. The Court’s task will be to decide whether the amended law, read with the directions, respects that line.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper 2. Fundamental rights (Articles 19, 25 and 26), secularism, judicial review; GS Paper 1. Freedom struggle, national symbols; GS Paper 4. Constitutional morality, respect and conscience.
A question worth preparing. Can respect for national symbols be secured through penal law? Examine in light of Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala and the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. (250 words)
The Mains framing. Separate three things: the honour the State may legitimately give a national symbol, the protection of that symbol from insult or obstruction, and compelled participation. The first two are well within Parliament’s power; the third runs into Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 as read in Bijoe Emmanuel. A balanced answer supports protection against deliberate insult while arguing that respectful silence must remain lawful.
📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia
Prelims, statement-ready facts:
- On 22 September 2026 the Supreme Court sought the Centre’s response to T.M. Krishna’s challenge to the PINH (Amendment) Act, 2026.
- The Bench was headed by CJI Surya Kant, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
- The PINH Act, 1971 protects the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem; the 2026 amendment added the National Song.
- Preventing the singing, or disturbing an assembly singing, is punishable with up to three years, a fine, or both.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): standing respectfully without singing is not disrespect; Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1).
- Article 51A(a) names the Flag and the Anthem, not the National Song.
- 24 January 1950: the Constituent Assembly gave Vande Mataram equal honour with Jana Gana Mana.
- Vande Mataram was written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, and appeared in Anandamath (1882).
- 1896: Rabindranath Tagore sang Vande Mataram at the Calcutta session of the Congress.
Prelims, the traps:
- The Bench’s remarks were observations, not a final judgment.
- The National Song’s status comes from a Constituent Assembly statement, not an Article of the Constitution.
- Fundamental Duties under Article 51A are not directly enforceable in courts.
- The PINH amendment penalises preventing or disturbing the singing; it does not in terms penalise silence.
Mains, arguments and keywords:
- Honour, protection and compelled participation are distinct; only the last conflicts with conscience.
- Bijoe Emmanuel: the right to silence is part of free expression; tolerance is a constitutional practice.
- Penal laws must be precise: an undefined “National Song” and ungazetted directions raise legality concerns.
- Keywords: PINH Act 1971, Section 3, Bijoe Emmanuel, conscientious objector, Article 25, positive secularism.
Interview, be ready for:
- “Should singing national symbols be compulsory?” Respect can be required; participation should not be compelled on pain of prosecution, as Bijoe Emmanuel holds.
- “Is a religious reference in a national symbol unsecular?” Not by itself, as the Bench noted; the constitutional question is compulsion, not content.
Source: Vande Mataram and the 2026 National Honour Amendment: Supreme Court Seeks the Centre's Response — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs
