Back
Karnataka Government Tells High Court Vande Mataram Singing Not Mandatory Like National Anthem
The on Tuesday heard a challenging the state government’s circular that mandates singing only the first two stanzas of the national song ‘Vande Mataram’ at state government functions. The state government, through its Advocate General, defended the circular by arguing that there is no to sing the national song, unlike the national anthem, and that the circular falls within the state’s . The of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice TP Vivekananda, however, declined to adjudicate the substantive issues raised in the , directing that further steps await the outcome of pending proceedings before the concerning the national song.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy began when the Karnataka government issued a circular directing that only the first two stanzas of ‘Vande Mataram’ be sung at state functions, except those attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, or Governor. This circular was immediately challenged by advocate , who filed a arguing that the state’s action amounts to an of a . The petitioner contended that the national song, like the national flag and national anthem, is a that can only be legislated upon by the Union government. He further argued that the circular is contrary to the , which received presidential assent on , and extended statutory protection to the national song similar to that enjoyed by the national anthem.
The Union government had earlier issued a circular on , prescribing the official version of the national song, consisting of six stanzas, and directing that it be played on five specified occasions. The Karnataka circular, by limiting the singing to only two stanzas, was seen by the petitioner as an attempt to undermine the .
Arguments Before the High Court
The Karnataka government, represented by the Advocate General, submitted that the performance of the national song is not mandatory under any statute, unlike the national anthem. He emphasised that the MHA circular is issued “for guidance and information” and is not binding. “There is no mandate to sing National Song... unlike the National Anthem,” the Advocate General argued. He added that the impugned order does not regulate when, whether, or by whom the national song is sung at state functions, and that it is within the state’s ordinary executive work to decide such matters.
The petitioner’s counsel, advocate , countered that while the Union government has prescribed six stanzas, the state government has directed that only two stanzas be sung. “It is an attempt by State to override National Song itself,” Kamath argued. He pointed out that a can be legislated upon only by the Centre, and that if each state were to decide the contents of the , there would be 28 local variations of the song.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) appearing for the Union government took a contrary view, asserting that the central government’s order is binding under . “The AG wrongly said that the central government is not mandating any particular version. It is not for information, its for compliance,” the ASG said. He clarified that the official version consists of six stanzas and must be sung that way. “The order makes it mandatory. When under 256 and 257(1), the Union has issued a , can the State ignore it?” the ASG asked.
Court’s Decision to Await Ruling
The , after hearing the submissions, noted that the Advocate General had informed the court that a plea challenging the of the 2026 amendments to the , is pending before the . That petition, filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna, directly questions the extension of to the national song. The has orally observed that it is not within its remit to decide what the “National Song” is, but expects that the precedent in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala () will be followed, meaning that a person who does not sing the national song for religious reasons will not be subjected to penal consequences.
In light of the pending proceedings, the directed that further steps in the present await the orders of the . “In the above view of the matter, further steps should await further orders of the . List after 3 weeks,” the court ordered.
Legal Implications and Analysis
The core legal issue revolves around the distinction between the national anthem and the national song under Indian law. While obligates every citizen to respect the national flag and the national anthem, there is no constitutional provision regarding the national song. The Bijoe Emmanuel case established that compelling a person to sing the national anthem violates the . The 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act extended to the national song, making it an offence to intentionally prevent its singing or disturb an assembly engaged in singing it.
The Karnataka government’s argument that the national song is not mandatory is consistent with the ’s observation in Bijoe Emmanuel and the lack of a . However, the central government’s position that its circular is binding under Articles 256 and 257(1) raises questions about the division of powers between the Union and states concerning national symbols. If the Union can issue binding orders on the rendition of the national song, then a state circular limiting it to two stanzas could be seen as a violation of that .
The case also highlights the potential for multiplicity of interpretations if each state were to prescribe its own version of the national song. The petitioner’s concern about “28 local variations” is not without merit, as it could dilute the uniformity of a .
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of understanding the interplay between constitutional provisions, statutory amendments, and executive instructions. The pending challenge to the 2026 amendment will likely settle the scope of for the national song and whether singing it can be made mandatory in any form. The ’s decision to defer to the is prudent, as it avoids conflicting judgments and ensures a uniform approach.
The outcome will also have practical implications for state governments and event organisers. If the upholds the central circular’s binding nature, state governments may be required to adopt the full six-stanza version at all state functions. Conversely, if the amendment is struck down, the may prevail, leaving the national song without statutory protection.
Conclusion
The has temporarily paused the controversy over the mandatory singing of ‘Vande Mataram’ at state functions, pending the ’s decision on the of the 2026 amendment. The state government’s assertion that the national song is not mandatory like the national anthem reflects the current legal position, but the central government’s may alter that. The case is next listed on , when further developments from the are expected. For now, the debate over the number of stanzas and the power to prescribe them remains unresolved, leaving the legal community to await the ’s guidance.
