New Delhi | September 22, 2026
The Supreme Court has said that an elected government can determine the scope and prescribed version of the National Song, but a person who respectfully refuses to sing it on grounds of religion or conscience should not face criminal punishment.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, was hearing a challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.
Court Focuses on Penal Consequences
The case concerns provisions extending criminal protection under the law to the National Song, alongside the National Anthem.
The Bench indicated that it would examine whether people exercising religious freedom or acting as conscientious objectors could face criminal consequences for refusing to sing one or more stanzas of Vande Mataram.
The court referred to its 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, which recognised protection for students who respectfully declined to sing the National Anthem because of their religious beliefs.
Government Can Decide the National Song
The court said determining the National Song and deciding whether its official rendition should contain two, four or six stanzas falls within the government’s domain.
It also indicated that the judiciary would not decide the cultural or religious significance attached to the song.
The present petition was filed by Carnatic vocalist and author T.M. Krishna, who has challenged provisions and government directions relating to the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at specified official functions.
Constitutional Rights Remain Central
The hearing brings the issue of national symbols into contact with constitutional protections for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.
The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response. Its eventual consideration will determine how the amended law interacts with the protections recognised in the Bijoe Emmanuel precedent.
For now, the court’s observations distinguish between the government’s authority to prescribe national symbols and the question of whether individuals can be subjected to criminal penalties for a respectful refusal based on conscience or religion.
