BREAKING| Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against MHA Circular On Vande Mataram, Says No Penalty Prescribed For Not Singing It

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition challenging the recent circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the singing of all stanzas of the national song 'Vande Mataram' in official functions and schools, observing that the circular has not made the singing of the song compulsory.

Noting that there is no penal consequence prescribed for not singing the song, the Court observed that the petitioner's apprehensions regarding social discrimination against those who refused to sing it were "vague." The Court dismissed the petition, recording that it was "premature."

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul 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 the entire stanzas of Vande Mataram and the subsequent protocol issued for its singing in offices and schools.

At the outset, Justice Bagchi, pointing out that the MHA circular was an "advisory", said that it was not mandatory, since there is no penalty prescribed for not following it.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, for the petitioner, however submitted that even if there is no penalty prescribed for not following the 'advisory', it can lead to social compulsions to sing Vande Mataram, and the persons who do not follow it will be "singled out and discriminated against." "They will be threatened to conform," Hegde submitted.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant pointed out that the circular has used the word "may" in relation to the singing of the song in schools. "The word 'may' is used. There are no penal or adverse consequences. Nobody has asked that you do it in your academy," CJI told the petitioner.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was present in the Court for another matter, then interjected to say, "Do we need to be advised to respect the national song?"

Hegde highlighted that the people from all religions, including atheists, will be eventually compelled to sing the song as a "social demonstration of loyalty."

The Solicitor General then referred to 51A(a) of the Constitution. Hegde replied that as per Article 51A(a), a citizen only has the fundamental duty to respect the National Flag and the National Anthem, and there was no reference to Vande Mataram.

Patriotism cannot be compelled, says the petitioner

Hegde then referred to the Supreme Court's order recalling the directive to sing the National Anthem in movie halls. He also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, which protected a student who refused to sing the National Anthem due to religious reasons.

"Patriotism cannot be compelled," Hegde submitted.

"It can't be compelled even for the National Anthem?" CJI asked.

"If the Constitution has to mean anything, it has to protect individual conscience. Our tradition teaches tolerance. If there's an advisory without sanctions, your lordships may take it, there's no way that that advisory is enforced," Hegde said.

"Please come to us when you're discriminated on the basis of the advisory," Justice Bagchi then stated.

Hegde said that there was a "threat to conform." Disagreeing, Justice Bagchi said, "There's no threat conform... You have some vague apprehensions of discrimination."

"It is a premature apprehension; if there are any penal consequences, you come to us," CJI told Hegde.

"We just feel that you have some vague apprehensions of discrimination which do not have any clear nexus with the impugned circular" Justice Bagchi observed.

Hegde then raised another argument regarding the diminishing of the stature of the National Anthem. He said that when he recently visited the National School of Drama, Vande Mataram was sung for 3 minutes. He said that a 3-minute National Song will overwhelm the National Anthem. He added that as per the circular, the National Song will be sung before the National Anthem, and said that it will diminish the value of the National Anthem.

"There are enough citizens who will feel the pressure to conform", Hegde said.

The Chief Justice again disagreed, saying, "This is only a protocol. The word used is "when it is played". Earlier, we had a national flag protocol, that's only a protocol, saying if one wants to fly it, what are the things one must follow."

Hegde said that the National Flag has a statutory basis as per the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.

Hegde claimed this is a matter affecting the civic life of the entire nation. He added that there were historic reasons for not adopting the full version of the National Song. "The lack of a legal framework for national song renders this advisory unsustainable," he said.

"We will appreciate this argument if it is made mandatory. That part is completely silent, there are no penal consequences, there is no sanction, there is no requirement that it must be sung," CJI repeated, indicating the intention to dismiss the petition.

Solicitor General then submitted, "A person who says patriotism is not compulsory should not be entrusted with a writ in the Court"

Hegde took serious objection to the SG's remark and vehemently asserted, "This is performative. The Constitution is for all. It does not depend on where you stand politically or religiously."

Case : Mohamemd Sayeed Noori v Union of India | WP(c) 341/2026