Challenge to six-stanza version of ‘Vande Mataram’ and its compulsory rendition

Case Description

‘Vande Mataram’, composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1875, was first published as a two-stanza poem in Bangadarshan, a Bengali literary magazine. Chattopadhyay later incorporated it in his novel, Anandamath, adding four stanzas invoking the Hindu goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati. The petitions distinguish the original, stand-alone poem from the six-stanza composition in the novel, which they describe as a religious war song.

In 1937, following objections to the religious references in the additional stanzas, the Congress Working Committee resolved that only the first two should be sung at national gatherings. On 24 January 1950, Constituent Assembly President Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared that ‘Vande Mataram’ would be honoured equally with the National Anthem, ‘Jana Gana Mana’, without specifying the version. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, extended penal protection to the National Anthem but did not define or provide similar protection to a National Song. The petitioners state that the two-stanza version continued to be used at State functions after Independence.

On 28 January 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) directed that ‘Vande Mataram’ be sung or played in its entirety before the National Anthem at specified functions. An order dated 9 July 2026 prescribed the six-stanza composition as the official version of the National Song and extended its rendition to more occasions, including schools. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, which came into force on 6 August 2026, substituted Section 3 of the 1971 Act to criminalise intentionally preventing the singing of either the National Anthem or the National Song, or causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing. The offence carries imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. Section 3A of the principal Act provides for a minimum one-year sentence on a second and every subsequent conviction.

Three petitions challenge the MHA orders and the Union’s authority to prescribe the six-stanza version. The petitioners argue that the orders compel citizens to participate in a religious composition invoking Hindu deities. They allege violations of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 21, 25(1), and Article 28(3) regarding religious worship in educational institutions, alongside the constitutional principles of secularism and fraternity. They challenge the requirement that the National Song precede the National Anthem as Article 51A(a) explicitly refers only to the Anthem.

Carnatic vocalist, author, and cultural activist T.M. Krishna challenges amendment to Section 3 of the 1971 Act, alongside the MHA orders. He argues that extending criminal protection without a conscientious objection exemption compels participation in the six-stanza rendition. He contends that the undefined term ‘disturbance’ is vague and threatens scholarly criticism, artistic expression, and historical teaching. Noting that the Supreme Court dismissed an earlier challenge as premature because penal consequences were absent then, Krishna argues that the 2026 amendment introduces those exact consequences. He seeks a declaration that amended Section 3 and the MHA orders violate Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a), 21, and 25(1), and that only the first two stanzas constitute the National Song.

B.M. Borkar, a retired Additional Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise and former BAMCEF National President, challenges both MHA orders and the 2026 Amendment Act personally and on behalf of SC, ST, OBC, and converted minority communities. A Buddhist adhering to the Phule-Ambedkarite movement, Borkar contends that the six-stanza text is a religious war song from Anandamath that glorifies Hindu-Muslim conflict, threatening secularism and fraternity. He argues the amendment exposes these communities to prosecution and seeks directions to quash the orders and ensure no person is compelled or penalised for abstaining from the six-stanza rendition.

Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, a former senior IAS officer and former chairman of the Kerala State SC/ST Commission, challenges the MHA orders and the 2026 amendment’s penal consequences. Describing himself as “auto-theistic,” he rejects the Vaishnavite and Saktheya religious practices in the additional stanzas and objects to forced obeisance to unchosen deities. He advances a distinct legal argument that the two-stanza version acquired binding status through 79 years of continuous State practice, which executive orders cannot unlawfully replace. He seeks to quash both orders and establish formal recognition of the two-stanza version as the National Song.