Supreme Court Seeks Centre Reply on Plea for Equal Status to Vande Mataram

New Delhi, October 27: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a plea to shift a Delhi High Court case on Vande Mataram to itself, bringing fresh focus on national anthem law and the rules that govern national songs and symbols. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana sought the Union government's response on the transfer plea filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay and ordered that it be tagged with similar pending petitions.

Filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, the transfer plea asks the Court to decide whether Vande Mataram, described as a symbol of India's history, sovereignty, unity and pride, should be honoured on par with the national anthem. It seeks a direction that Jana Gana Mana and Vande Mataram be played and sung every day in all schools and educational institutions. The stated reason for transfer is a single decision that will settle the question for the whole country.

The judges did not decide the merits on Tuesday. Notice went to the Centre, with a direction that the transfer plea be heard with other petitions on the status and compulsory singing of Vande Mataram. A joint hearing will stop different courts from passing separate orders on what must be sung, where and in what form.

What national anthem law says now

Parliament has placed protection of the national anthem and national flag under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act. The Court is also hearing a challenge by Carnatic vocalist T. M. Krishna to a 2026 amendment to that Act. The result will shape how far criminal law can go in punishing alleged disrespect, and whether refusal to sing or recite can lead to prosecution. The tagged cases thus link a demand for greater honour to Vande Mataram with a parallel question on the limits of compulsion.

At issue are two Home Ministry orders dated January 28 and July 9, 2026, which require all six stanzas to be sung at formal state events. The challengers said the decades-old practice was to sing the first two stanzas at official functions. They contend the shift alters settled convention and leaves organisers and broadcasters unsure about compliance.

Transfer plea seeks daily singing

According to the transfer plea, Vande Mataram deserves the same standing as Jana Gana Mana because of its place in the freedom movement and its adoption as national song. Equal honour, the petitioner says, would mean a clear protocol for when it is played and instruction for students on its meaning. The plea asks for daily performance in schools and colleges to build knowledge of national symbols from an early age.

Any push for compulsory singing will be tested against Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution, which protect speech and freedom of conscience, and against past case law related to national anthem orders in schools and cinemas. The petitioner is expected to rely on Article 51A on fundamental duties, which calls on citizens to respect the Constitution, the national flag and the national anthem and to cherish the ideals of the freedom struggle. The Court will have to weigh a call for mandatory respect against claims of personal belief and religious freedom.

Challenge to six-stanza mandate

Activist B. D. Borkar and former IAS officer Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji filed the two petitions that directly challenge the Home Ministry orders. Borkar has contended that the extended version, beyond the first two stanzas, includes invocations of Hindu goddesses and that making the full version compulsory at state functions divides people on religious lines. His case asks whether the state can prescribe a longer religiously worded text for official ceremony when a shorter version had acceptance across communities.

Mavoji contends that a direction to sing the full song at formal events infringes freedom of religion and conscience and weakens secular practice. Officials, students invited to state programmes, and members of the public who do not wish to recite the additional stanzas for reasons of belief should not be put in a position where refusal looks like disloyalty, the petition says. It invites the Court to examine whether administrative orders can impose a form of observance that Parliament itself has not required in that form.

A separate challenge to the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act adds a criminal-law layer. The Court will need to decide what conduct counts as insult and what safeguards apply to persons who stay silent. During the hearing on October 27, the bench orally observed that individuals with conscientious objections should not face criminal prosecution for not reciting the song. That remark is not a final ruling, but it signals concern about use of police power in matters of singing and standing to attention.