Summary
A three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna's challenge to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 and the Home Ministry directions issued under it.
Krishna says the law and those directions compel the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram, with penal consequences. The Bench said the elected State may decide what the National Song is, whether two stanzas or more.
It also said the State cannot subject conscientious objectors to criminal prosecution, citing the 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel judgment as the governing law. The Centre has been asked to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks.
WHY IN NEWS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
On September 22, 2026, the Supreme Court took up a petition by T.M. Krishna, argued by senior advocate S. Muralidhar. It challenges the 2026 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, read with a January Home Ministry direction and a July circular.
The petition says stanzas three to six of the song are devotional and deity-invoking and that compelling them under penal threat violates secularism. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said Bijoe Emmanuel still governs the Act. The hearing also saw a sharp exchange between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Muralidhar.
Standard News
Two Powers the 2026 Amendment Merged and the Court Pulled Apart The
Court did something precise on Tuesday. It separated two powers the 2026 amendment treats as one: the power to define a national symbol and the power to punish a citizen who will not perform it. The first belongs to the elected State. The second, the Court signalled, runs into a wall built in 1986.
The rule as written and where it goes quiet Start with the Constitution.
Article 51A(a) makes it a fundamental duty to respect "the National Flag and the National Anthem." The text does not mention the National Song. Vande Mataram's status rests on the Constituent Assembly's 1950 statement giving it equal honour with Jana Gana Mana, not on any Article.
That silence matters. The 2026 amendment brings penal protection to a symbol the Constitution itself never names and, as Muralidhar pointed out, the Act does not define "National Song" either. A penal law that depends on custom to identify its own subject is exactly the kind of vagueness criminal law is supposed to avoid.
Now the statute. As originally framed in 1971, Section 3 punished anyone who prevented the singing of the National Anthem or disturbed an assembly singing it. The offence was obstruction. A person who stood in silence committed no crime and that is why Bijoe Emmanuel sat comfortably alongside the Act for four decades.
According to the petition, the 2026 scheme moves the line from obstructing the song to failing to join it.
Why silence is constitutional compliance In Bijoe Emmanuel (1986), three Jehovah's Witness children stood respectfully during the anthem but did not sing, because their faith forbade it.
The Court held that expelling them violated two rights:
- Article 19(1)(a): freedom of speech and expression, which includes the freedom not to speak or sing -
Article 25(1): freedom of conscience and the right to profess and practise religion The key idea is that respect and participation are not the same thing. Standing in silence is respect. The State can demand the first and cannot compel the second.
The 2026 case adds a sharper edge. By the petitioner's account, stanzas three to six invoke deities. Compelling people to sing them at public functions pushes against Article 25 and against the spirit of Article 28(3), which bars compelling anyone to take part in religious worship in state-recognised or state-aided institutions.
In practice:
what the Bench did and did not decide The Court did not strike anything down and did not question the song's status. Justice Bagchi even noted that a religious reference alone may not breach secularism, citing the reference to God in the American anthem.
The Bench narrowed the dispute to one question: can a conscientious objector face criminal consequences? On that, it said Bijoe Emmanuel is the law of the land and has not been challenged.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Vande Mataram was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and appeared in his 1882 novel Anandamath.
-
The song has six stanzas.
-
In 1937 the Indian National Congress adopted only the first two as the National Song.
-
In 1950 the Constituent Assembly gave Vande Mataram equal honour with Jana Gana Mana.
-
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act was enacted in 1971.
-
Its maximum punishment is three years' imprisonment, a fine or both.
-
In Bijoe Emmanuel v.
-
State of Kerala (1986), the Supreme Court held that expelling students who stood respectfully but did not sing the National Anthem violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1).
-
The Bench hearing the challenge comprises CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V.
-
Mohana.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The two constitutional silences that make the 2026 amendment vulnerable: the National Song's absence from Article 51A(a) and the Act's failure to define its own subject.
How Section 3 of the 1971 Act changes from punishing obstruction to reportedly punishing abstention and why that change matters for Bijoe Emmanuel.
What is working and what is not in the Court's approach, including Justice Bagchi's US-anthem point on secularism and its limits.
A short-term and long-term way forward, from reading the Act down to building national consensus on national symbols.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free