Supreme Court: refusing to sing the National Song cannot be punished
Respect can be expected. Can singing be compelled?
Published 23 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
On 22 September, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard a petition by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The amendment extends penal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram: intentionally preventing its singing, or disrupting an assembly singing it, is now punishable with up to three years in jail. Krishna also challenged Ministry of Home Affairs directions requiring all six stanzas to be sung at official functions.
Krishna argues that the last four stanzas refer to Hindu deities such as Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, and that compelling citizens to sing them amounts to compelled religious affirmation, contrary to secularism and Articles 14, 15, 19 and 25.
The Court said it is not for the judiciary to decide what the National Song should be, which is a matter for the State. But it orally observed that the principle in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) still holds, and that a conscientious objector who does not sing one or all stanzas for religious reasons should not face criminal prosecution. It asked the Centre to respond within two weeks without issuing formal notice.
Prelims facts
- In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court held that three Jehovah's Witness students who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem could not be expelled.
- Article 51A(a) makes respecting the National Flag and National Anthem a fundamental duty; the National Song is not named in it.
- A 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 extended its penal provision, which already protected the National Anthem, to intentionally preventing the singing of Vande Mataram.
Quick recall
- What did Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) hold?
- Students who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem for religious reasons could not be expelled; this was protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
- Which national symbols does Article 51A(a) mention?
- The Constitution, its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.
- What did the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 do?
- Made intentionally preventing the singing of Vande Mataram, or disrupting an assembly singing it, punishable with up to three years in jail.
- Who filed the petition against the 2026 amendment?
- Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna.
- What did the Supreme Court say on 22 September 2026?
- That Bijoe Emmanuel still holds, and a conscientious objector who does not sing one or all stanzas for religious reasons should not face prosecution.
- What MHA direction did the petition also challenge?
- The requirement to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at official functions.
- Did the Court decide what the National Song should be?
- No. It said that is for the State, not the judiciary.
- What did the Court decide in Shyam Narayan Chouksey (2018)?
- It modified its 2016 order and made playing the National Anthem in cinemas optional.
Prelims practice question
Which of the following is specifically mentioned in Article 51A(a) as something every citizen must respect?
- National Song and National Flag
- National Anthem and National Flag
- National Emblem and National Song
- National Calendar and National Anthem
Show answer
Answer: (b) National Anthem and National Flag. Article 51A(a) refers to the Constitution, its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Scope and limits of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19
- How to use this
Lets you show that freedom of expression includes the freedom to remain silent, and how courts have handled compelled patriotism, including in cinemas.
- In Bijoe Emmanuel (1986), expelling Jehovah's Witness students who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem was held to violate Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
- On 22 September 2026, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant orally observed that a conscientious objector who does not sing Vande Mataram for religious reasons should not be prosecuted.
- In Shyam Narayan Chouksey (2018), the Court modified its 2016 order and made playing the National Anthem in cinemas optional.
Both cases turn on whether the State can penalise expression (or its refusal) beyond the grounds listed in Article 19(2); cite Shreya Singhal alongside the National Song ruling.
Mains practice question
Patriotism cannot be compelled. Discuss with reference to judicial pronouncements on national symbols. (150 words)
Model answer
National symbols embody shared identity, but the Constitution also protects freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to remain silent, and freedom of conscience.
Judicial position
- Bijoe Emmanuel (1986): expelling Jehovah's Witness children who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
- Shyam Narayan Chouksey (2018): the Court modified its 2016 order and made playing the anthem in cinemas optional.
- 2026 hearing: the Court said Bijoe Emmanuel still governs, so a conscientious objector who does not sing Vande Mataram should not be prosecuted.
Balance
- Article 51A(a) asks citizens to respect the Flag and Anthem; the duty is not enforceable by penalty.
- The 1971 Act, as amended in 2026, punishes preventing or disrupting the singing of the Anthem and the National Song, not silence.
Significance
Protects minorities and dissenters from majoritarian pressure, and keeps patriotism voluntary.
Respect for national symbols is strongest when it is freely given rather than enforced.
The basics
Why this matters
A 2026 law made preventing the singing of Vande Mataram a crime, and government directions required all six stanzas at official events. The Supreme Court has signalled that citizens who stay silent for reasons of conscience should not be prosecuted. The case tests the line between respect for national symbols and freedom of conscience.
What the law now says
The 1971 Act already penalised preventing the singing of the National Anthem. The 2026 amendment extended this to the National Song. The Ministry of Home Affairs also required all six stanzas at specified functions.
- Named in Article 51A(a)
- Protected by the 1971 Act since 1971
- Not named in Article 51A
- Penal protection added in 2026
The precedent
In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), three students who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem for religious reasons were protected. The Court held that silence is part of free expression and that Freedom of conscience under Article 25 protected them.
How we got here
The law on national symbols has evolved through courts and Parliament.
- 1950Vande Mataram given equal honour with the Anthem
- 1971Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act
- 1976Fundamental duties added by 42nd Amendment
- 1986Bijoe Emmanuel
- 2018Anthem in cinemas made optional
- 22 Sep 2026Court says Bijoe Emmanuel still holds
What is unsettled
The Court has asked the Centre to respond. The broader question is whether penal laws can compel participation in singing a song with religious imagery, especially given that Fundamental duties name only the Flag and the Anthem, and that the later stanzas of Vande Mataram refer to Hindu deities.
You now know
- The 2026 amendment extended penal protection under the 1971 Act to Vande Mataram.
- Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) protects those who stand respectfully but do not sing.
- Article 51A(a) names the National Flag and National Anthem, not the National Song.
- The Court said choosing the National Song is for the State, but prosecuting conscientious objectors is open to review.
Go deeper
In one line: The Supreme Court signalled that respecting a national symbol cannot be turned into a crime of not singing it.
Why it matters for UPSC
GS2 asks about fundamental rights and duties. This story ties Article 19(1)(a), Article 25 and Article 51A together with a clear precedent.
The core idea
The State can choose national symbols and ask citizens to respect them. But the Constitution also protects the freedom to stay silent. In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, children who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem were protected. A 2026 amendment extended criminal penalties to preventing the singing of Vande Mataram, and MHA directions required all six stanzas at official events. The Court has said it will not decide what the National Song is, but that a conscientious objector should not be prosecuted.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 1971: Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.
- 1986: Bijoe Emmanuel.
- Up to three years: penalty under the 2026 amendment.
- 22 September 2026: the Court's observations.
Where to go next
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: The right to remain silent
- Fundamental duties: What Article 51A asks of citizens
- Vande Mataram: The history of the National Song
- Freedom of conscience: The core of Article 25
In one line: The State can choose and honour national symbols, but compelled participation must pass the tests of free expression, conscience and proportionality.
Two questions the Court separated
- What is the National Song and how many stanzas: a policy choice for the State.
- Can someone be punished for not singing: a question of fundamental rights.
Rights involved
- Article 19(1)(a): the right to speak includes the right not to speak.
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience.
- Article 14: equal treatment of all faiths.
Duties
Fundamental duties under Article 51A ask citizens to respect the Flag and Anthem, but are not directly enforceable and do not mention the National Song.
Why the stanzas matter
The first two stanzas describe the motherland; the later ones, invoking Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, were not adopted as the National Song in 1950, which is why mandating all six is contested.
Precedent
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala remains the key authority; the Court said it had not been questioned.
Where to go next
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: The right to remain silent
- Fundamental duties: What Article 51A asks of citizens
- Vande Mataram: The history of the National Song
- Freedom of conscience: The core of Article 25
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
The right to remain silent
In one line: In 1986, the Supreme Court held that three Jehovah's Witness students could not be expelled for not singing the National Anthem while standing respectfully.
Reasoning
There was no law requiring anyone to sing, and standing respectfully did not insult the anthem. Their silence was protected by Article 19(1)(a) and their faith by Article 25.
Key line of thought
The Court said real tolerance means allowing sincere belief even when it differs from the majority.
Relevance today
The Court in 2026 said this law still governs, so conscientious objectors to singing Vande Mataram should not be prosecuted.
Where to go next
- Fundamental duties: What Article 51A asks of citizens
- Vande Mataram: The history of the National Song
Fundamental duties
What Article 51A asks of citizens
In one line: Fundamental duties are listed in Article 51A, added by the 42nd Amendment (1976) on the Swaran Singh Committee's recommendation.
Number
Originally ten; the 86th Amendment (2002) added an eleventh, on parents providing education to children aged 6 to 14.
On national symbols
Article 51A(a) asks citizens to respect the Constitution, the National Flag and the National Anthem.
Enforceability
They are not directly enforceable in court, but can guide the interpretation of laws.
Where to go next
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: The right to remain silent
- Vande Mataram: The history of the National Song
Vande Mataram
The history of the National Song
In one line: Vande Mataram, written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and part of his novel Anandamath (1882), is India's National Song.
Status
On 24 January 1950, the Constituent Assembly declared that it would be honoured equally with the National Anthem; the first two stanzas were adopted.
Role in the freedom struggle
It became a rallying cry during the Swadeshi movement after the 1905 partition of Bengal.
The 2026 controversy
Government directions required all six stanzas at official events, and a new law penalised preventing its singing.
Where to go next
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: The right to remain silent
- Fundamental duties: What Article 51A asks of citizens
Freedom of conscience
The core of Article 25
In one line: Freedom of conscience, protected by Article 25, is the inner freedom to hold one's own beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Scope
It covers belief as well as the absence of belief, and applies to all persons.
Limits
Outward practice can be limited for public order, morality and health, but belief itself cannot be compelled.
Application
Courts have used it to protect people who, for reasons of faith, decline to take part in ceremonies, as in Bijoe Emmanuel.
Where to go next
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: The right to remain silent
- Fundamental duties: What Article 51A asks of citizens
Take the 23 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers