# Supreme Court issues notice on pleas against the six-stanza Vande Mataram orders

URL: https://upsc.help/current-affairs/2026-10-28/vande-mataram-six-stanza-sc-notice/
Date: 28 October 2026 (2026-10-28)
Source: The Hindu, Page 10
UPSC papers: GS2, GS1
Publisher: upsc.help (Pratidin), free and open-source UPSC Civil Services current affairs. Not affiliated with UPSC. Every fact was checked against the source reports by a separate review before publishing.

**In one line:** The Supreme Court will examine whether the Centre's 2026 orders prescribing the full six-stanza Vande Mataram violate freedom of conscience and exceed executive power.

On 27 October 2026 a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre on two petitions, by Buddhist activist Bhimrao Duryodhan Borkar and by Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, challenging Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) orders of 28 January 2026 and 9 July 2026 on Vande Mataram. The January order prescribes the full six-stanza version, with a playing time of about 3 minutes and 10 seconds, for specified official occasions, requires everyone to stand, and places the National Song first when it is played with the National Anthem. The July order extends this to a wider range of occasions, including schools. Dr G. Mohan Gopal appeared for the petitioners.

The petitioners say the two-stanza version has been sung since Independence and that the four added stanzas, taken from Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's novel Anandamath, invoke Hindu deities, so that the orders impose a 'sectarian prayer'. They argue the MHA has no statutory or constitutional power to change the National Song by executive order, and invoke Article 25(1) (freedom of conscience), Article 19(1)(a) (free speech, including the right to remain silent), Article 21, Article 28(3) (no compulsion to join religious worship in aided institutions) and Articles 14 and 15. Relying on Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), they say that not singing cannot automatically be treated as disrespect. They seek quashing of both orders, a declaration that only the two-stanza version is the National Song, and protection from penal, civil or administrative consequences for abstaining.

The case sits on a layered history. In 1937 the Congress Working Committee adopted only the first two stanzas for national gatherings. On 24 January 1950 Rajendra Prasad told the Constituent Assembly that Vande Mataram "shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it." The Constitution itself mentions only the National Anthem, in the Fundamental Duty in Article 51A(a). In March 2026 the Supreme Court called an earlier challenge to the January order "premature" because the advisory then carried no penalty. Since then Parliament has amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 so that its Section 3, which punishes intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or disturbing an assembly singing it, also covers the National Song, with up to three years' imprisonment, a fine or both. In September 2026 the Court sought the Centre's response to a challenge to that amendment by vocalist T.M. Krishna.

## Prelims facts

- On 27 October 2026 the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on pleas challenging MHA orders of 28 January and 9 July 2026 that prescribe the six-stanza Vande Mataram.
- The 28 January 2026 order prescribes the full version (about 3 minutes 10 seconds) on specified occasions and places Vande Mataram before the National Anthem when both are played.
- In 1937 the Congress Working Committee adopted only the first two stanzas; on 24 January 1950 Rajendra Prasad gave the song equal status with Jana Gana Mana.
- The Constitution refers only to the National Anthem (Article 51A(a)); a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 extended its Section 3 to the National Song.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) protected students who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem.

## Quick recall

- **Dates of the MHA orders on Vande Mataram challenged in the Supreme Court?** 28 January 2026 and 9 July 2026.
- **Approximate playing time of the full Vande Mataram per the MHA order?** About 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
- **In which novel did Vande Mataram first appear, and when?** Anandamath, 1882, by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.
- **Which body adopted only the first two stanzas in 1937?** The Congress Working Committee.
- **Who declared on 24 January 1950 that Vande Mataram would have equal status with Jana Gana Mana?** Rajendra Prasad, in the Constituent Assembly.
- **Which Article mentions the National Anthem as a Fundamental Duty?** Article 51A(a).
- **Which 1986 case protected students who did not sing the National Anthem?** Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala.
- **Maximum punishment under Section 3 of the 1971 Act for preventing the singing of the Anthem or Song?** Up to three years' imprisonment, or fine, or both.

## Prelims practice question

With reference to Vande Mataram, consider the following statements:
1. It first appeared in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's novel Anandamath.
2. The Constitution of India, in the Fundamental Duties, requires citizens to respect the National Song.
3. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 as amended in 2026 penalises intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (c) 1 and 3 only. 1 is correct: the poem was published in Anandamath in 1882. 2 is wrong: Article 51A(a) mentions the National Flag and the National Anthem, not the National Song; the Constitution has no reference to a National Song. 3 is correct: the 2026 amendment substituted Section 3 to cover the National Song as well.

## UPSC previous-year questions this connects to

- UPSC Mains 2021, GS2: 'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q131-constitutional-morality-rooted-constitution-itself-founded-essential/)
  How to use this story in the answer: Use the Vande Mataram challenge as a current example where constitutional morality requires tolerance of respectful dissent.
- UPSC Mains 2025, GS2: "Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike..." In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India. (https://upsc.help/pyq/q027-constitutional-morality-fulcrum-acts-essential-check-upon/)

## Mains practice question

The status of national symbols must be balanced with freedom of conscience. Discuss with reference to the recent orders on Vande Mataram and the challenges to them. (150 words)

### Model answer

National symbols unite a diverse republic, but compelling their use can collide with conscience. The challenge to the six-stanza Vande Mataram orders, admitted by the Supreme Court on 27 October 2026, tests this balance.

## The State's position
- MHA orders of 28 January and 9 July 2026 prescribe the full version and its precedence over the Anthem.
- Rajendra Prasad's 24 January 1950 statement gave the song equal status with Jana Gana Mana.
- A 2026 amendment to the 1971 Act penalises preventing its singing.

## Concerns
- Only two stanzas were adopted in 1937; later stanzas invoke Hindu deities.
- Articles 25(1), 28(3) and 19(1)(a), and Bijoe Emmanuel (1986), protect respectful silence.
- Executive orders altering a national symbol lack clear legal basis, petitioners argue.

## Way forward
- Respect without compulsion: no penalty for silent, respectful abstention.

Equal honour for the song need not mean compelled recitation.

## The basics

## Why this matters

National symbols are a favourite Prelims area, and the tension between patriotism and freedom of conscience is a recurring Mains theme. In 2026 Vande Mataram moved from convention to executive orders and then to a penal law, and the Supreme Court is now hearing challenges at each step.

## From poem to National Song

The 1937 decision dropped the later stanzas, which refer to Hindu goddesses such as Durga and Lakshmi, on the suggestion of Gandhi and Tagore with Nehru's support. That two-stanza version was what was sung at official events until 2026.

## Anthem and Song: not the same in law

The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 now protects both. But the Act punishes obstructing the singing, not refusing to sing.

## The legal questions

The petitioners rely on Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, where the Court protected children who stood but did not sing. The State relies on the song's history and National symbols and their legal status. The Court will also have to reckon with Freedom of conscience under Article 25, which is subject to public order, morality and health.

## Sources

- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-buddhist-activist-plea-against-union-orders-vande-mataram-6-stanza-singing-556153
- https://www.nextias.com/ca/headlines-of-the-day/28-10-2026/87479
- https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/02/12/mha-issued-guidelines-on-singing-national-song-2026/
- https://scroll.in/latest/1091658/premature-sc-rejects-challenge-to-government-order-on-playing-all-six-paras-of-vande-mataram
- https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/president-grants-assent-to-law-penalising-obstruction-to-vande-mataram-singing-544759
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vande_Mataram