Back
MP High Court Flags 'Vande Mataram' Refusal: Notice to Indore Councillors in PIL Storm
In a swift move that underscores sensitivities around national symbols, the issued notice on , to respondents in a (PIL) accusing two councillors of refusing to sing the National Song 'Vande Mataram' . The of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi directed notices after hearing petitioner , a local advocate appearing in person.
The Spark at Indore's Civic Meet
The controversy erupted on , during an official meeting. Reports highlight that councillors Rubina Iqbal and Fauzia Sheikh Alim —identified as respondents No. 5 and 6—allegedly declined to participate in reciting 'Vande Mataram' , with statements perceived as showing disrespect. Hemnani's PIL, titled v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No. 13537 of 2026), portrays this as more than a personal choice, framing it as a breach during public proceedings where honouring the freedom struggle-era song is expected.
The petition urges authorities to probe the conduct, potentially launching an inquiry, and issue advisories to municipal bodies and institutions to uphold decorum when the National Song is sung.
Petitioner's Fiery Plea: Duty or Defiance?
Hemnani argued that the councillors' actions violate
Article 51A(a)
of the Constitution, which mandates citizens to
"abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem."
He further invoked
, contending the behaviour warrants legal scrutiny in official settings.
No counter-arguments from respondents surfaced at this initial hearing, as Shri Pradyumna Kibe , Government Advocate, accepted notice for respondents No. 1 to 4 (state authorities).
Bench's Measured Response: Notices Fly
The court order is concise yet pointed:
"The petition is filed as aalleging that the respondents No.5 & 6, who are Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Indore, had not only refused to recite National Song 'Vande Mataram' but in the official proceedings they have also shown disrespect."
"Counsel for the petitioner argued that the said conduct is violative ofof India and is also punishable under."
Directing action, the bench stated:
"Issue notice to the respondents. Shri Pradyumna Kibe, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Let notice be issued to the respondents No.5 & 6 on payment of PF within three working days by Registered AD mode, with due acknowledgement, returnable within two weeks. List the matter in the week commencing."
No precedents were cited, as the matter advances to substantive hearing.
Broader Ripples: Patriotism in Public Life?
This interim step signals judicial attention to balancing fundamental duties with elected officials' expression in civic forums. While 'Vande Mataram' holds historic reverence from India's freedom struggle, the PIL pushes for clearer guidelines, potentially shaping protocols in municipal and public institutions.
What's at Stake Next?
The councillors now face formal response obligations, with the case queued for early May 2026. Outcomes could range from dismissal to directives enforcing respect for national symbols, influencing how public bodies handle such rituals amid diverse viewpoints.
Key Observations: - Historic role : Petition emphasizes 'Vande Mataram' 's freedom struggle legacy, demanding honour. - Legal hooks : Article 51A(a) and 1971 Act positioned as safeguards against disrespect. - Procedural nudge : Court's notice issuance keeps momentum, eyeing inquiry and advisories.
