Supreme Court issues notice on pleas against the six-stanza Vande Mataram orders
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.
Published 28 October 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
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?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
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.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: National symbols, secularism and freedom of conscience
- How to use this
Use the Vande Mataram challenge as a current example where constitutional morality requires tolerance of respectful dissent.
- In October 2026 the Supreme Court issued notice on pleas that the six-stanza Vande Mataram orders breach Articles 25(1) and 28(3).
- Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) held respectful silence during the Anthem is not disrespect, grounding tolerance in Articles 19(1)(a) and 25.
Constitutional morality as a check on high functionaries applies to executive orders reshaping national symbols.
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
- 1882Published in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee's novel Anandamath
- 1896Sung by Rabindranath Tagore at the Calcutta session of the Congress
- 1937Congress Working Committee adopts only the first two stanzas
- 24 January 1950Rajendra Prasad gives it equal status with Jana Gana Mana
- 28 January 2026MHA order prescribes the full six-stanza version on specified occasions
- 27 October 2026Supreme Court issues notice on pleas against the orders
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
- Named in Article 51A(a) as a Fundamental Duty
- Section 3 of the 1971 Act penalised preventing its singing
- Bijoe Emmanuel (1986): respectful silence is not an offence
- Not mentioned in the Constitution
- Status rests on the 24 January 1950 statement
- 2026 amendment brought it under Section 3 of the 1971 Act
- Six-stanza version prescribed by MHA orders in 2026
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
- 1Article 25(1)Freedom of conscience; added stanzas invoke deities
- 2Article 28(3)No compulsion to join religious worship in aided institutions
- 3Article 19(1)(a)Free speech includes the right to remain silent
- 4Articles 14 and 15Citizens who do not share the invocations are disadvantaged
- 5No legal sourceAn executive order cannot redefine the National Song
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.
Go deeper
Why it matters for UPSC
The story joins national symbols (Prelims), the freedom movement (GS1), secularism and religious freedom (GS1, GS2), and the limits of executive orders (GS2).
The core idea
Vande Mataram's status rests on history, not the Constitution; see National symbols and their legal status. In 2026 the MHA prescribed all six stanzas and Parliament extended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 to the song. Petitioners argue the later stanzas are religious and that compelled singing breaches Freedom of conscience under Article 25. Their main precedent is Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 27 October 2026: notice issued by CJI Surya Kant's bench.
- 28 January and 9 July 2026: MHA orders challenged.
- About 3 minutes 10 seconds: full version.
- 1882: Anandamath; 1937: two stanzas adopted; 24 January 1950: equal status declared.
- Section 3 of the 1971 Act: up to three years, fine, or both.
Where to go next
- National symbols and their legal status: where each symbol's status comes from.
- Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971: the penal law now covering the song.
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: the precedent on respectful silence.
- Freedom of conscience under Article 25: the right at the heart of the challenge.
Go deeper: honour without compulsion?
For the orders. The State points to the song's role in the freedom struggle and to Rajendra Prasad's statement of 24 January 1950 that it 'shall have equal status' with the Anthem. Equal status, it can argue, justifies equal protocol, including precedence and standing. Parliament's 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 shows legislative backing for protecting the song.
Against the orders. The petitioners say what was given equal status in 1950 was the version then in use, which since 1937 had been only two stanzas. The added stanzas invoke Hindu deities, so prescribing them in schools and official events raises issues under Freedom of conscience under Article 25 and Article 28(3). They argue that an executive order cannot redefine a national symbol without a law. And Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala holds that respectful silence is not disrespect.
The penal layer. The amended Section 3 punishes intentionally preventing singing or disturbing an assembly, not declining to sing. The bench, while hearing Krishna's plea, observed orally that people who refrain for religious or other reasons should not be penalised. That distinction may decide much of the case.
Comparisons. The Anthem has a constitutional anchor in Article 51A(a); the Song does not. That gap, discussed under National symbols and their legal status, explains why the Song's protocol has come by executive order and statute rather than by the Constitution.
National symbols and their legal status
Where each symbol's status comes from.
In one line: India's national symbols draw their status from different sources: the Constitution, Constituent Assembly decisions, statutes and executive orders.
Sources of status
- National Flag and National Anthem: named in the Fundamental Duty in Article 51A(a), which asks citizens to respect the Constitution, its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem.
- National Song: not in the Constitution; its status comes from Rajendra Prasad's statement in the Constituent Assembly on 24 January 1950 that it would be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana.
- Statutes: the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 protects the Flag, the Constitution, the Anthem and, since 2026, the Song.
- Executive orders: the MHA issues protocol on how and when they are played.
Why in news
The 2026 MHA orders prescribe the six-stanza Song; petitioners say only a law, not an order, could change it.
Where to go next
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971
The penal law now covering the song.
In one line: This 1971 law punishes insults to the National Flag and the Constitution and obstruction of the singing of the National Anthem, and since 2026 the National Song.
Main provisions
- Section 2: burning, defacing or otherwise insulting the National Flag or the Constitution: up to three years, fine, or both. Criticism aimed at lawful change is not an offence.
- Section 3: intentionally preventing the singing of the Anthem, or disturbing an assembly engaged in it: up to three years, fine, or both. The 2026 amendment substituted this section to add the National Song.
- Section 3A (added 2003): a minimum of one year for repeat offences.
Why in news
Parliament passed the amendment in July 2026 and the President assented soon after. T.M. Krishna has challenged it; the Court sought the Centre's response in September 2026. The current petitions target the MHA orders.
Where to go next
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
The precedent on respectful silence.
In one line: In this 1986 case the Supreme Court held that students could not be expelled for not singing the National Anthem when they stood up respectfully.
The facts
Three children belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith stood during the Anthem at their Kerala school but did not sing, because their faith forbade it. They were expelled.
What the Court held
The Court held that their expulsion violated Article 19(1)(a), which includes the freedom to remain silent, and Article 25, freedom of conscience. Standing respectfully showed no disrespect, and no law required anyone to sing. It said that 'our tradition teaches tolerance'.
Why in news
Petitioners against the six-stanza orders rely on it to argue that not singing Vande Mataram cannot be treated as disrespect.
Where to go next
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: every story that connects to it (2)
Freedom of conscience under Article 25
The right at the heart of the challenge.
In one line: Article 25(1) guarantees all persons freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights.
What it covers
Freedom of conscience is an inner freedom to hold or not hold beliefs, including non-belief. It protects against being forced to profess a faith. Article 28(3) adds that no one attending an institution recognised or aided by the State can be required to take part in religious worship there without consent.
Why in news
The petitioners argue that four of Vande Mataram's six stanzas invoke Hindu deities, so prescribing them on official occasions and in schools compels a religious invocation. The State may reply that the song is cultural and patriotic. The Court will weigh these claims against the song's status.
Where to go next
Take the 28 October 2026 quiz: 24 Prelims-style questions with answers