Back
Defers Hearing on PIL Over Two-Stanza Vande Mataram Order
The on Tuesday deferred the hearing of a challenging the state government’s notification that limits the rendition of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at official events. The of Justices Anu Sivaraman and TP Vivekananda took note of a similar petition pending before the and directed that the matter be listed after three weeks.
The state government, represented by Advocate General , robustly defended the order, asserting that the national song does not carry the same mandatory character as the national anthem. “There is no mandate to sing the national song. From till today, only the first two stanzas are sung,” Shetty submitted, referring to a communication that he characterized as mere guidance rather than a binding directive.
Background of the Controversy
The , issued by the Karnataka government on , mandates that at all state functions—except those attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, or Governor—only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram shall be sung. The decision sparked immediate political backlash, with legislators in the singing all six stanzas in defiance of the order on Monday.
The controversy traces its roots to the ’s August resolution to limit the song’s rendition at party programmes to the first two stanzas, citing a Congress resolution and the historical debate over the song’s content. Vande Mataram, composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, was adopted as the national song in , but its later stanzas have been criticized by some as containing imagery that conflicts with certain religious sensibilities.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioner’s counsel mounted a , questioning the state’s authority to regulate a national symbol. “Who has the prerogative to regulate a national symbol, the national song, the Centre or the State?” Kamath asked, emphasizing that Parliament had amended the , to extend statutory protection to Vande Mataram. He argued that after such parliamentary action, only the Union government could prescribe the manner of rendition.
Kamath further invoked Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution, which require states to comply with parliamentary laws and not to impede the Union’s executive powers. He also pointed to procedural irregularities, submitting that the Cabinet had discussed the issue informally without a proper Cabinet note from the concerned department or legal advice.
In response, Advocate General Shetty countered that the amended Act does not define “national song” and that the Constitution itself does not mention Vande Mataram in the way it explicitly refers to the national anthem under . “The MHA communication is only a guideline; it does not make singing mandatory,” he reiterated, stressing that the state’s order merely codified a long-standing practice.
Legal Analysis: and National Symbols
The case raises fundamental questions about the distribution of powers between the Centre and states in respect of national symbols. While the under the includes matters relating to “National symbols,” the state’s power to regulate conduct at official events derives from its . The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act criminalizes intentional insults to the national song but does not prescribe how or when it should be sung. This legal vacuum has allowed states to issue their own guidelines—a practice now being tested.
The petitioner’s reliance on Articles 256 and 257 is significant. If the court accepts that Parliament’s amendment created a uniform statutory regime, state orders that alter the content or manner of rendition could be struck down as inconsistent with central law. On the other hand, the state’s argument that the Act only prohibits insults, not mandates singing, suggests that the order is merely an administrative protocol rather than a legal requirement.
The Supreme Court’s pending examination of whether can attach to a person who chooses not to sing Vande Mataram on grounds of conscience or religion adds another layer of complexity. That case will directly address the tension between and under Articles 25 and 19.
Political Dimensions and Public Reaction
The Karnataka order has become a flashpoint in the ongoing political rivalry between the Congress-led state government and the BJP opposition. The ’s earlier decision to limit the song at party events was seen by critics as an attempt to appease minority voters, while the BJP’s defiance in the Assembly aimed to portray the Congress as anti-national.
The High Court’s deferral gives both sides time to prepare, but the legal outcome will have national implications. If the court upholds the state’s order, other states may follow suit, potentially creating a patchwork of regulations for the national song. Conversely, if the order is struck down, the Centre may be forced to issue a binding uniform directive.
What Lies Ahead
The will now hear the PIL after three weeks, by which time the Supreme Court may have provided some guidance on the broader constitutional issues. Legal practitioners should watch for the apex court’s observations on whether the Prevention of Insults Act creates a to sing the national song, and whether states can impose their own rendition rules without conflicting with central law.
For now, the remains: the two-stanza rule applies in Karnataka, but its ultimate validity hangs in the balance. The case serves as a reminder of the delicate interplay between , , and the symbolic power of national identity in India’s constitutional framework.
