Click the Play button to listen to article

A PIL has been moved before the Karnataka High Court challenging the State Government's recent order mandating that only the first two stanzas of the National Song 'Vande Mataram' shall be sung at State Government functions, except those attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, or Governor.

The matter is expected to be mentioned today before the high court for listing. 

The plea, preferred by Advocate Girish Bharadwaj, raises the question of whether a State Government can, by executive order, prescribe the form and content of a 'national symbol' like the National Song.

The challenge pertains to a September 8 Government Order issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Political), to the effect that the truncated rendition of 'Vande Mataram' would be sung at all State Government programmes. This order was issued in pursuance of the decision of the Council of Ministers taken on September 3, 2026,

The PIL, filed through advocate Angad Kamath, submits that such an order is in direct conflict with the Union Government's Orders relating to the National Song, which prescribe the official version as the complete composition of 'Vande Mataram' in six stanzas, and not just the first two stanzas.

For context, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), by letter dated July 9 had circulated an order to all States mandating that 'on all occasions, when the National Song is sung, the official version only shall be recited in mass singing'.

The PIL thus argues that the subject of the National Song is not enumerated in List II or List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Consequently, it falls within the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 97 of List I read with Article 248 (residuary powers).

“…The Legislature of the State of Karnataka could not enact a law declaring that the National Song consists of two stanzas. What the State Legislature cannot do by statute, the State Government cannot do by executive order”, the petition argues, while invoking Article 162 which limits the State's executive power to matters within its legislative competence.

Articles 256 and 257(1) have also been relied upon by the petitioner to underscore that a state cannot exercise its executive power in a manner that breaches compliance with parliamentary laws and blocks the exercise of Union's exclusive executive power.

As a result, the plea argues that the impugned state order is contrary to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 which received Presidential assent on August 6, 2026. According to the plea, the Amendment brought about a major change in Section 3 of the erstwhile 1971 Act to extend the same statutory protection as the National Anthem to the National Song, making it an offence to intentionally prevent its singing or disturb an assembly engaged in singing it.

The petitioner argues that by protecting the 'National Song' without defining it, Parliament intended to protect the official version including all six stanzas as prescribed by the Union.

Earlier, in another matter, the Karnataka High Court had refused to entertain a PIL challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs'  circular issued on January 28 and subsequent  protocol titled 'Orders Relating to the National Song of India', advising the singing of all six stanzas of the national song 'Vande Mataram' in all schools. The court had then noted that the MHA circular mentions 'may' and is thus, not made mandatory yet.

The plea also distinguishes the Supreme Court's order in March which declined to entertain a challenge to the MHA circular, noting that the order was passed before the 2026 Amendment Act was passed. Moreover, as per the petitioner, the earlier PILs was about an individual's apprehension of compulsion whereas the current PIL is about the state's power to institute a contrary protocol to that of the Union in the specific subject matter.

Hence, the petitioner further contends that it does not seek to compel anyone to sing the national song as enunciated in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala. Instead, the PIL merely seeks a direction that 'wherever' the Song is sung at a State function, it should be the official version of Vande Mataram.

On another note, the petition also challenges the manner in which the Cabinet decision was taken. It alleges that the item was decided as an 'Informal Discussion' at the 19th Cabinet meeting, without a Cabinet Note from a sponsoring department, and without the advice of the Law Department. The petition claims that this violates the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977.

Further, the petition contends that the order infringes Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, by arguing that singing the National Song in the Union prescribed format is an expression protected under Article 19(1)(a). In that light of the matter, an executive order by the state is not 'law' capable of imposing a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), the plea adds.

Tags: