• UGI USER
  • Sep 23, 2026
  • 6 Likes
  • 0 Comments

SC Protects Conscientious Objection to Vande Mataram

SC PROTECTS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO NATIONAL SONG

WHY IN THE NEWS ?

  • Court Observation: The Supreme Court observed that a person refusing to sing Vande Mataram on genuine religious or conscientious grounds should not face criminal consequences.
  • Centre’s Response: The Court sought the Union government’s response to a petition challenging the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and related government directions.
  • Rights Question: The case involves the balance between national symbols, freedom of conscience and religious freedom under the Constitution.

SC Protects Conscientious Objection to Vande Mataram

SUPREME COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND THE CASE

  • Petition Challenge: Carnatic vocalist M. Krishna challenged the 2026 amendment and Ministry of Home Affairs directions concerning the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at official functions.
  • Penal Provision: The amended law provides punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment, fine or both for intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or disturbing an assembly engaged in such singing.
  • Religious Concern: The petition argues that the later stanzas contain references to Hindu deities and that compulsory rendition could conflict with freedom of conscience and religion.
  • Court’s Scope: The Bench clarified that it would not decide what the National Song should be or whether its official version should contain two or six stanzas; its concern is the constitutional protection of conscientious objectors.
  • Government Response: The three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymala Bagchi and V. Mohana, sought the Centre’s response to the petition.

ABOUT BIJOE EMMANUEL AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

●      Bijoe Emmanuel Case: In the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala judgment, the Supreme Court protected schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the National Anthem but did not sing because of their religious beliefs.

●      Freedom Conscience: The judgment recognised that freedom of conscience forms an important part of constitutional protection and that respectful non-participation cannot automatically attract punishment.

●      Article 25: Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations.

●      Article 19: Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) may also become relevant where compelled expression or compelled participation is questioned.

●      Constitutional Balance: The present case raises questions about balancing respect for national symbols, State authority, individual conscience and religious freedom, while determining the scope of criminal penalties.