Back
TM Krishna's Vande Mataram challenge: Supreme Court says no criminal action for conscientious objectors
The has made a significant observation in the ongoing legal challenge against the amended , declaring that a person who refuses to sing Vande Mataram—whether in whole or in part—due to genuine conscientious or religious objections should not face . The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, anchored its reasoning in the landmark judgment , which shielded schoolchildren who respectfully stood during the national anthem but did not sing it for religious reasons.
The observation came during the hearing of a petition filed by renowned Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna, who has challenged the of Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act as amended in , along with directions mandating the singing of the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at official functions. The petitioner contends that the law and the accompanying circular effectively compel individuals to participate in stanzas containing references to Hindu deities, thereby infringing their under .
The Court’s Core Observation
Justice Bagchi, speaking for the bench, drew a direct parallel with the Bijoe Emmanuel . In that case, the Supreme Court had held that compelling Jehovah’s Witness children to sing the national anthem violated their and religion under Articles 25 and 26, as long as they stood respectfully. The present bench indicated that the same principle must apply to a who chooses not to recite one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram.
“Even the Constitution didn’t mention the national song in Article 51A. By customs and usage, the national song has always been mentioned and understood as Vande Mataram, with the two stanzas,” Justice Bagchi observed, highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the official version of the song. The court made clear that it would not enter into the question of what constitutes the national song, whether the official version should contain two or six stanzas, or what national sentiments should be associated with it. These matters, the bench said, fall within the domain of the elected government in a democracy.
Instead, the court’s focus was narrowly trained on whether can be imposed on a person who does not participate in singing because of a genuine religious or conscientious objection. The answer, it indicated, is an emphatic no.
The Challenge to the Amendment
The petition by TM Krishna specifically targets , as amended in . The amended provision makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of the national anthem or the national song, or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing either of them. A violation attracts imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both.
Krishna’s plea also challenges the ’ that directs the singing of the complete six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at specified government, ceremonial, and cultural occasions. According to the petitioner, the later stanzas contain verses that invoke Hindu deities, making them incompatible with the secular character of the Constitution and forcing participation on individuals of other faiths or no faith.
During the hearing, , appearing for Krishna, forcefully argued that the law suffers from a serious : it does not define what the national song is. “A cannot be in the realm of . You don’t even define what a national song is in the statute, and you make it a punishable offence,” he submitted. He pointed out that for almost 80 years, people were told to sing only two stanzas, and any change should come only by consensus.
Muralidhar further contended that the government cannot rely on an —which is not even gazetted—to impose the consequences of a . “The original law had no mention of a national song. National song requires an official declaration in the form of a notification,” he argued. The court took note of this submission and suggested that the government clarify that it will not rely on such office memoranda to give meaning to a .
The Bijoe Emmanuel and Its Application
The Bijoe Emmanuel judgment remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law on the intersection of patriotism and individual conscience. In that case, three children belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness faith refused to sing the national anthem because their religion forbade saluting any symbol other than God. They stood silently and respectfully during the anthem. The Supreme Court held that their conduct did not amount to disrespect under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, and that forcing them to sing violated their under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
Justice Bagchi noted that the principle established in Bijoe Emmanuel has not been questioned and continues to hold the field. Applying that principle to the present case, he observed that a person whose conscience or religious beliefs are protected under should not be subjected to criminal consequences merely for not singing the national song.
The court’s observation is particularly significant because the amendment extends penal protection to the national song, creating a parallel regime to the one governing the national anthem. Without a clear definition of the national song and without an exception for conscientious objectors, the law could potentially be misused against individuals who hold genuine beliefs that prevent them from participating in the singing of certain stanzas.
in Penal Statutes: A Serious Concern
Senior Advocate Muralidhar’s argument that the Act does not define what constitutes the national song struck a chord with the bench. Under well-established principles of criminal law, a must be clear and unambiguous. An offence cannot be created by implication or by reference to an that has not been formally notified.
“For the first time, after almost 80 years, they are trying to tell us it’s not two stanzas. This is why, when you use the adjective ‘national’, there has to be some building of a public opinion,” Muralidhar submitted. He cautioned that the lack of a statutory definition could lead to arbitrary enforcement, with different authorities interpreting the national song differently.
The court appeared receptive to this concern, particularly in light of the fact that the original Act did not mention the national song at all. The amendment was introduced in without a corresponding official declaration of what the national song comprises. The bench indicated that the government must clarify its position, especially on whether it intends to rely on an to impose criminal penalties.
Government’s Position and Next Steps
The Supreme Court has sought the Union government’s response to Krishna’s petition. The bench, however, was reportedly not inclined to issue a formal notice at this stage and confined its consideration to the question of penal consequences. The court is not currently examining the religious interpretation of the lyrics or deciding whether Vande Mataram should comprise two or six stanzas.
This development comes months after the Supreme Court, in , declined to entertain a challenge to the Centre’s earlier directions, observing that the circular was advisory and carried no penal consequences for those who chose not to sing the national song. The court had then said the plea was premature in the absence of any instance of coercion or punishment. However, the present proceedings directly bring the question of for non-participation before the court, making the outcome potentially far-reaching.
Implications for Legal Practice and Civil Liberties
The Supreme Court’s observation signals a robust protection of individual conscience against majoritarian compulsion. For legal practitioners, the case underscores the importance of the Bijoe Emmanuel and its potential expansion to cover other national symbols beyond the anthem. The court’s reluctance to define the national song also highlights the perils of legislative in penal statutes—a point that will be of interest to constitutional lawyers and criminal law specialists.
If the court ultimately holds that the amended Section 3 cannot be applied to conscientious objectors, it would create a for individuals who refuse to sing Vande Mataram on genuine religious or philosophical grounds. Such a ruling would align with the Constitution’s commitment to and the , while still requiring respect for national symbols.
The case also raises questions about the role of executive circulars in defining criminal offences. The ’ , not being a , cannot supply the missing definition in the Act. The court’s insistence on an official declaration by notification suggests that any future attempt to criminalise non-participation must be preceded by a clear, democratically debated definition of the national song.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s observation in TM Krishna’s case is a reaffirmation of the constitutional principle that patriotism cannot be coerced. By invoking the Bijoe Emmanuel judgment, the bench has signalled that the right to prevails over mandatory displays of national fervour, as long as respect is not compromised. The ball is now in the government’s court to clarify its position, and the legal community will be watching closely as this matter develops. For now, the message is clear: a person who does not sing all stanzas of Vande Mataram for genuine conscientious reasons should not face criminal action.
