Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging MHA Circular on Vande Mataram, Terms It "Premature" and Based on "Vague Apprehensions"

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday declined to entertain a writ petition challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) circular about the singing of India's National Song, Vande Mataram, at official and public functions, holding that the petition was filed prematurely and that the impugned circular carries no penal consequences for non-compliance. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, was hearing a writ petition filed by one Muhammed Sayeed Noori, challenging the circular issued by the MHA on January 28 regarding the singing of all stanzas of Vande Mataram and the protocol issued for its rendition in offices and schools. Live Law In a 10-page order issued on January 28, the Ministry of Home Affairs mandated the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at schools and government events, restoring the song to its original length. The directive, effective February 6, 2026, fixes a duration of 3 minutes and 10 seconds for its rendition and outlines specific protocols, marking the song's 150th anniversary. The order further stipulates that if both the National Song and the National Anthem, Jana Gana Mana, are performed together at an event, Vande Mataram shall be played first, and that the audience shall stand at attention during its singing or playing. Some have objected to singing all six stanzas, preferring instead the first two stanzas which were adopted as the National Song by the Constituent Assembly in 1950.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even if there is no penalty prescribed for not following the advisory, it could lead to social compulsion to sing Vande Mataram, and that persons who do not follow it would be "singled out and discriminated against."  Hegde argued that individuals who refuse to sing or stand may face indirect pressure and social ostracism, contending that compliance was being enforced through social norms rather than legal sanction. Hegde also invoked constitutional principles, drawing reference to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which had protected students who refused to sing the National Anthem on grounds of religious conscience. He submitted that "patriotism cannot be compelled" and that "if the Constitution has to mean anything, it has to protect individual conscience." The bench was unpersuaded by the petitioner's arguments. Justice Bagchi, at the outset, pointed out that the MHA circular was an "advisory" and was therefore not mandatory, since no penalty was prescribed for not following it. Justice Bagchi directly questioned the petitioner's counsel, asking whether the circular specified any penal consequences for not singing the National Song, or whether any person had been removed from a congregation for not singing it. CJI Kant asked whether any notice had been sent to the petitioner compelling anyone to sing the National Song. Justice Bagchi further noted that Clause 5 of the Union Government's directive uses the word "may," clearly implying its non-mandatory nature, and stated: "This freedom is as much to sing the national song as not to sing. That is why it does not fall foul of legal rights." The bench repeatedly underlined that the circular does not make the singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, observing: "We will hear all this when there are penal consequences or when it is made mandatory. This notification is advisory. No penal consequences, also." Justice Bagchi further told the petitioner's counsel: "Please come to us as and when you are discriminated on the plank of this advisory. We have to see if a mere advisory is a breach of constitutional right. This is just a vague apprehension of discrimination which does not have a reasonable nexus with the impugned notification." The bench told the petitioner that he may approach the Court in case of any penal action or notice being issued to him, and observed that at present the petition amounted to nothing but a "vague apprehension of discrimination." The Court dismissed the plea, observing that it was not inclined to entertain the same as it had been filed prematurely.  The case title on record is Muhammed Sayeed Noori v. Union of India. Even as the Court disposed of the petition, the matter has continued to draw opposition from certain religious organisations. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board demanded the withdrawal of the MHA notification, with its General Secretary, Maulana Mohammed Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi, calling it unconstitutional, against religious freedom and secular values, contrary to Supreme Court judgments, and directly conflicting with the religious beliefs of Muslims.  Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani also criticised the directive, calling it a "blatant attack on freedom of religion." Composed by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay in 1875 and later included in his novel Anandamath, Vande Mataram was set to tune by Rabindranath Tagore and first presented at the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress. The song became a powerful rallying cry during the independence movement, and in 1950, India's first President, Rajendra Prasad, accorded Vande Mataram the status of the National Song. It is pertinent to note that Article 51A(a) of the Constitution lists it as a fundamental duty of citizens to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, the National Flag, and the National Anthem, with no express mention of the National Song. This constitutional distinction formed part of the arguments before the bench during the hearing.

Wednesday's ruling makes clear that the MHA's January 28 circular, while setting out a protocol for the rendition of Vande Mataram at official functions, remains advisory in character and does not carry the force of law. No individual can face legal penalty, removal, or adverse action solely for declining to sing the National Song. The Supreme Court has left the door open for the petitioner or any similarly aggrieved person to return to Court if and when concrete discriminatory action is taken pursuant to the circular.

This article is based on proceedings before the Supreme Court of India on March 25, 2026, in the matter of Muhammed Sayeed Noori v. Union of India.

https://video.wixstatic.com/video/1fb4ae_d69834e062ca4eeca384a3f77246a688/720p/mp4/file.mp4