सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा, धार्मिक कारणों से वंदे मातरम् न गाने पर कोई आपराधिक दंड नहीं

IndiaNo criminal action for not singing Vande Mataram on religious grounds, expects SC

The bench on Tuesday now put the ball in the Centre's court on the Vande Mataram row, seeking its response to musician Krishna's plea against criminalising disrespect to the National Song.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday told the Centre that it expects there to be “no criminal consequences” for conscientious objectors to singing Vande Mataram, while hearing a plea by popular Carnatic musician T M Krishna challenging the criminalisation of disrespect to the National Song.

The bench on Tuesday now put the ball in the Centre's court on the Vande Mataram row, seeking its response to musician Krishna's plea against criminalising disrespect to the National Song.

"We expect no criminal consequences" for conscientious objectors (A person who refuses to do something) to Vande Mataram. What is the national song is not in dispute. It is for the democratic state to decide what is the national song, whether two stanzas or four stanza," Justice Joymala Bagchi observed.

The bench also made it clear that it expects persons refusing to sing for religious reasons will not face any penal action for this.

The court of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana -- besides Justice Bagchi -- said it will examine whether the right not to sing recognised in Bijoe Emmanuel is protected under the amended law.

It is to be noted that the Bijoe Emmanuel versus State of Kerala in 1986 case is a landmark Supreme Court judgment that protected the right of individuals to refuse to sing the National Anthem on the grounds of religious conscience, provided they show respectful silence.

Krishna, a Carnatic musician, has challenged the 2026 amendment extending penal cover to the National Song and the mandate to sing six stanzas.

The top court said it is for the state to decide the contours of the national song, but religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 must be safeguarded.

Krishna has moved a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which extends penal protection to the National Song, Vande Mataram, as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs' directions mandating the singing of the complete six stanzas of the song at official functions.

During the hearing, the bench orally noted that deciding what constitutes the "National Song" is beyond the court's remit. However, it said it would examine whether the right of a conscientious objector to refrain from singing it, as upheld in the Bijoe Emmanuel case, remains protected. The court added that it expects the Bijoe Emmanuel precedent to apply, ensuring no penal action against those who do not sing it on religious grounds.

While opposing the challenge, Mehta argued that the issue should not be viewed narrowly through the lens of secularism. He also referred to persons with a “Naxalite mindset” while arguing that those questioning the National Song should consider its historical significance and the role it played during the freedom struggle.

Senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Krishna, strongly objected to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's reference to "Naxalites" in the Supreme Court during the hearing against his client and demanded immediate withdrawal of the expression.

Muralidhar questioned the legal framework extending statutory protection to Vande Mataram and the consequences that could follow from refusing to sing it.

The bench asked the government to keep in mind the 1986 judgement which protected children from penal actions if they do not sing the national anthem.

The court initially did not incline to issue notice, but told the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, it would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the Act. What is the national song is not in dispute.

"The declaration of law in Bijoe Emmanuel is not yet questioned. It is for the democratic state to decide what is the national song, whether two stanza or four stanza. But nobody who feels an infraction of Art. 25, 26 rights or a conscientious objector would be subjected to [penal consequences]. It's not the remit of the court to second-guess what is the national sentiments or aspiration associated with Vande Mataram. It is for the state to decide," the court observed.

Krishna argued that the Centre's directions go beyond regulating protocol and that the amendment effectively compels citizens to participate in singing the last four stanzas.

He further said that the measures were violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15(1) (protection against discrimination), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (life and personal liberty) and 25(1) (freedom of conscience and religion).

The New Indian Express

www.newindianexpress.com

Powered by Nyaya 247 News