'Conscientious objector can't face criminal action for refusing to sing Vande Mataram': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that a person who, as a conscientious objector, refuses to sing one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram on grounds of religion or conscience cannot be subjected to criminal consequences. A three-member bench of CJI Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, as well as directions requiring the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram to be sung at specified official functions.

Justice Bagchi referred to the SC's 1986 judgement in Bijoe Emmanuel case, which protected schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the national anthem but did not sing it on grounds of conscience.

"We would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the Act," Justice Bagchi observed, adding that the declaration of law in that judgement had not been questioned.


The bench said it was for the democratically elected government to decide what constituted the national song and whether it comprised two or more stanzas. "It is not the remit of the court to second-guess what is the national sentiment or aspiration associated with Vande Mataram," the bench observed.

Justice Bagchi said a person claiming protection under Articles 25 and 26, or a conscientious objector, should not be subjected to penal consequences merely for refusing to sing one or all stanzas.

The observations came after senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Carnatic musician TM Krishna, argued that the amended penal law did not define 'national song' and could be misused. He questioned the use of an un-gazetted office memorandum to prescribe the singing of all six stanzas. He argued such matters should ideally evolve through public opinion and consensus rather than through a "top-down approach". This triggered a sharp remark from solicitor general Tushar Mehta: "Law-making is as per the Constitution. Law-making cannot be as per the Naxalites' idea. Muralidhar immediately objected and demanded that the expression be withdrawn. Justice Bagchi observed that even if a person were labelled a Naxalite, that person would not lose constitutional rights.