SC rules conscientious objectors cannot face penalties for Vande Mataram

A scene in the courtroom centers on a sharp clash as the Supreme Court signals it will not punish those who refuse to sing Vande Mataram on religious grounds⁴. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant with Justices Joymala Bagchi and V Mohana, heard TM Krishna’s challenge to the 2026 amendments and a Home Ministry directive that require all six stanzas to be sung at official events^6,12.

The justices anchored their reasoning in the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala ruling, which protected children who refused to sing the national anthem on conscience grounds, and they suggested that this precedent should govern the current law while considering penal consequences^1,15,25. The hearing spilled into a broader debate about secularism and the limits of state power, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate S Muralidhar exchanging pointed remarks including a controversial Naxalite comparison, prompting a caution from the court about extra constitutional forces^9,13,32.

The court has asked the Centre to respond within two weeks and indicated it would examine whether not singing could be a criminal offense, while acknowledging that the national song remains a state prerogative and that the penal provisions demand careful constitutional scrutiny^29,28,31.

The case continues to unfold as Karnataka and other states face PILs and executive orders that limit or expand how Vande Mataram is performed at public events, with the central question still: can someone be punished for choosing not to sing all six stanzas^21,23,26.