'Patriotism Can't Be Compelled': Sanjay Hegde To Supreme Court On Vande Mataram Row; CJI Asks 'Not Even For National Anthem?'

Assailing the MHA circular regarding singing of national song-Vande Mataram in schools, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde today stressed before the Supreme Court the importance of protecting individual conscience and contended that "patriotism cannot be compelled".

In this regard, CJI Surya Kant questioned the senior counsel whether the same argument applies in the context of the National Anthem as well. "Patriotism per se cannot be compelled. If the Constitution has to mean anything, as far as an individual is concerned, it has to protect individual conscience. Our tradition teaches tolerance" replied Hegde.

A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by Muhammed Sayeed Noori challenging the circular issued by the MHA on January 28 regarding the singing of entire stanzas of Vande Mataram and the subsequent protocol issued for its singing in offices and schools.

After hearing the submissions, the bench rejected the petition as premature, observing that the circular was merely an advisory and did not make the singing of the national song compulsory.

During the hearing, Hegde argued that the circular presented a threat to conform. "We have respect for every religion in this country. If under a garb of enforcing an advisory, people can be compelled to sing along, those of us citizens, irrespective of religion, the atheists, who then feels compelled to participate in 'social demonstration of loyalty', which goes against one's conscience..." he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the Court but not appearing in the case, referred to Article 51A of the Constitution and commented, "do we need to be advised to respect the national song?". This led Hegde to respond, "There's a difference between national anthem and national song! It (Article 51A) does not speak of national song."

When the bench observed that there is no specific direction to the petitioner to sing the song in his institution, Hegde remarked, "Petitioner may be kept aside for a second. There are many who have our reasons. Patriotism cannot be compelled."

At this point, the CJI posed, "It can't be compelled even for national anthem?"

Hegde replied to the query by saying, "Patriotism per se cannot be compelled. If Constitution has to mean anything...it has to protect individual conscience. Our tradition teaches tolerance. If there's what is called an advisory without sanctions, your lordships may take it, there are more ways that that advisory is enforced".

Hegde submitted that the National Anthem has a statutory protection as per the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act, whereas the National Song has no such legal framework. The CJI said that this argument could have been appreciated if there was a compulsion to sing Vande Mataram. the CJI pointed out that the advisory does not prescribe any penalty for not singing it.

Justice Bagchi also observed that the petitioner's apprehensions about discrimination were "vague". Ultimately, the petition was dismissed as "premature."

Briefly put, the petitioner challenged MHA's circular dated 28.01.2026, which prescribed the manner in which Vande Mataram is to be played/sung in public functions and educational institutions.

The petitioner claimed that the impugned directions in the circular created a framework which made participation in singing of the national song a component of school activity. In practice, it was apprehended that non-participation could result in pressure, disciplinary action and/or social stigma against students, teachers and educational institutions.

"The effect of the impugned directions is therefore to place citizens, particularly those belonging to minority religions or monotheistic faiths in the untenable position of either participating in expressions contrary to their conscience/belief/religion or risking being perceived as showing disrespect toward a national symbol," the plea stated.

The petitioner further highlighted that Article 51A(a) of the Constitution (prescribing fundamental duties) requires respect for the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem. It does not mention the national song.

The petitioner also relied on the decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court held that three school students, who respectfully stood during the national anthem but declined to sing it on grounds of religious faith and conscience (as they were Jehovah's witnesses) could not be compelled to participate in the singing.

Some of the grounds raised were as follows:

- The circular violated the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practice religion under Article 25, as the official version of the song contained therein employed devotional language and invocations associated with particular religious imagery. The petitioner contended that these created difficulty specially for members of monotheistic faiths, where reverence toward any entity other than the Divine is impermissible.

- The circular paved way for compelled expression, thereby violating freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The directions encouraged institutionalized recitation of a particular composition through organized mass singing, which expression may not reflect their religious beliefs.

- The circular was contrary to the decision in Bijoe Emmanuel case. If the Constitution protects the right not to sing the National Anthem, it necessarily follows that citizens cannot be compelled to participate in the recitation of national song, which has no comparable statutory framework or legal obligation attached to it.

- The circular undermined the commitment to Secularism and did not recognize the special position of educational institutions, where State has heightened obligation to respect freedom of conscience and intellectual autonomy.

Case Details: MUHAMMED SAYEED NOORI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 341/2026