Supreme Court plea challenges 'Vande Mataram' mandate, citing 'Islamophobic' content that threatens our unity.

Market Mastery

Webinar by Vishal Malkan

Find the weak links

in your portfolio by Vishal Malkan

A petition filed in the Supreme Court has challenged the Centre's directions prescribing the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram at official, ceremonial and educational occasions, alleging that the orders replace a longstanding practice of singing the standalone two-stanza composition and compel citizens to participate in religious worship against their conscience.

Bhimrao Duryodhan Borkar, a Buddhist activist and former national president of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF), has moved the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) orders dated January 28 and July 9, 2026, as well as the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026. The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Vaibhav Choudhary.

The petition, filed on October 1, seen by Moneycontrol, argues that the executive cannot alter the established form of the National Song through administrative directions. It seeks recognition of the two-stanza, standalone version as the National Song and protection for citizens who decline to sing or play it.

The petitioner has argued that the Centre’s six-stanza Vande Mataram mandate could deepen communal tensions, hurt the religious sentiments of minorities, including Buddhists, and undermine the constitutional principles of fraternity and secularism.

The petition states: “The unstated but undeniable consequence of the Impugned Orders would be to irreversibly deepen communal division and conflict in India by outraging the religious and spiritual feelings of minority religions including the religion of the petitioner (Buddhism).” It further alleges that the orders “wound and make a mockery of the foundational Constitutional basic structure features of fraternity and secularism.”

The challenge follows the Supreme Court’s September 22 hearing in a separate petition filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna. During that hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the court expected the principle laid down in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala to govern the amended law, and that conscientious objectors should not face criminal consequences for declining to sing one or all stanzas.

‘Secular republic’ to ‘theocracy’

Borkar’s petition alleges that the MHA orders have effectively replaced the two-stanza composition used since Independence with the six-stanza version appearing in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s novel Anandamath.

“By imposing sectarian prayer to particular Goddesses of one particular religion as the National Song of India, the Impugned Orders convert the character of the polity of India from a ‘secular republic’ to a ‘theocracy’,” the petition states.

The plea distinguishes between the standalone poem, which it describes as a tribute to the motherland, and the later four stanzas associated with Anandamath. According to Borkar, the additional stanzas invoke Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati and are embedded in the novel’s account of a religious conflict involving Hindu ascetics and Muslims.

“In Anandamath, ‘matram’ means goddess. ‘Vande Mataram’ and the text of the two-stanzas of the original standalone song are morphed by the plot of the novel into a violent war cry of soldiers of Goddesses and their prayer to Goddesses for victory in a religious war against fellow Indians,” the petition states.

The petitioner contends that compelling citizens to sing the complete composition, or to participate in ceremonies involving it, could burden people whose religious beliefs do not permit them to join in such worship. These characterisations and allegations are the petitioner’s submissions and have not been established by a judicial finding.

Petition alleges the orders replaced 79 years of practice

The plea argues that the two-stanza composition was used by governments and other institutions for 79 years after Independence, while the remaining four stanzas were not ordinarily included in official renditions.

It relies on the Congress Working Committee’s 1937 decision on the song’s use at national gatherings. The committee recommended that “wherever the Bande Mataram is sung at national gatherings only the first two stanzas should be sung”.

The petition refers to the involvement of figures including Rajendra Prasad, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sarojini Naidu and Jawaharlal Nehru in the committee’s deliberations.

It also cites the Constituent Assembly proceedings of January 24, 1950, when Rajendra Prasad said Vande Mataram would be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana. Borkar argues that this declaration did not expressly designate the six-stanza version as the National Song or overturn the earlier practice of using the first two stanzas.

The petition claims that continuous state practice gave the standalone composition binding status through custom. It maintains that the MHA orders introduced a significant change without explaining the legal authority for prescribing the complete version.

Describing the alleged change, the plea states: “Under the guise of providing directions on the playing and singing of an ‘official version’ of the same song ‘Vande Mataram’ that has been used since independence, the Impugned Orders repealed the existing National Song (the two-stanza non-Anandamath ‘Vande Mataram’ song) that has been used consistently for 79 years and imposed a new National Song which is the six-stanza civil war song of Anandamath with its unconstitutional idolatrous and Islamophobic content.”

Centre’s authority and constitutional challenge

The petitioner argues that the MHA orders do not identify a legal source empowering the Union executive to change the composition recognised in practice. The July 9 directions expanded the occasions on which the song is to be sung or played, including in schools, and stipulated that Vande Mataram should precede Jana Gana Mana when both are performed.

Borkar challenges the orders as being beyond the government’s powers and alleges violations of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a) and (b), 21, 25(1) and 28(3) of the Constitution. The provisions are invoked in relation to equality, discrimination, freedom of speech and expression, personal liberty, freedom of conscience and religion, and restrictions on compulsory participation in religious instruction.

The petition also raises the constitutional significance of fraternity, arguing that imposing religious observances associated with one community on others can undermine the principle of equal citizenship.

It states: “The mere act of compelling non-believers to be present and to participate in an act of prayer of only one section of the people (whether they are forced to sing or not) is an act that in and by itself will devastate fraternity.”

The plea further argues that a national song should be one that people across religious communities can regard as their own, rather than a composition that some citizens may experience as incompatible with their beliefs.

Criminal penalties and the right not to sing

The challenge also targets the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which came into force on August 6, 2026. The amendment extended criminal protection to the National Song through a substitution of Section 3.

Under the amended provision, intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or National Song, or causing a disturbance to an assembly engaged in such singing, can attract imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both. A repeat conviction carries an enhanced minimum sentence of one year.

Borkar argues that the amendment does not define “National Song” or clarify which version of Vande Mataram the expression refers to. The petition contends that the lack of clarity, combined with criminal penalties, creates a risk for those who decline to participate in the six-stanza rendition or continue to follow the two-stanza version.

The plea relies on the Supreme Court’s 1986 judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel, which protected schoolchildren who respectfully declined to sing the National Anthem on grounds of conscience. Borkar argues that freedom of expression includes the right to remain silent and that refusal to sing should not automatically be treated as disrespect.

What the Supreme Court said on September 22

In the pending TM Krishna v. Union of India case, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana considered a challenge to the same amendment and MHA orders.

Justice Bagchi said the court expected the principle in Bijoe Emmanuel to govern the law. He observed that a person who believes singing would infringe their rights under Articles 25 and 26, or who is a conscientious objector, should not face criminal consequences for declining to sing one or all stanzas.

The bench said determining whether the National Song should comprise two or four stanzas was for the democratic state, rather than the court. It did not issue formal notice. Its written order directed that the paper book be provided to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who could file a response within two weeks, and listed the matter for October 12, 2026. The oral observations were not a final ruling on the constitutional validity of the amendment or the MHA orders.

Relief sought

Borkar has asked the Supreme Court to quash the two MHA orders, restrain authorities from requiring the six-stanza version at state, governmental, ceremonial or educational occasions, and declare that the two-stanza standalone composition alone should be recognised as the National Song.

The petition also seeks a declaration that singing or playing the National Song cannot be made compulsory and that no citizen should face civil, criminal or administrative action for abstaining from it. The petition is yet to be listed for hearingin the Supreme Court.