The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the requirement to sing all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at public gatherings. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, directed Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta to take the paper book and file the Centre’s reply within two weeks.The petition was filed by singer TM Krishna, who questioned the mandate and the penal consequences for non-compliance under the amended law. Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, representing Krishna, argued that the penal statute requires a clearly defined conduct that attracts criminal charges and should not be vague.The submissions resulted in a tense exchange between Muralidhar and Solicitor General Mehta, after Mehta used the term “Naxalite” when responding to constitutional arguments. Muralidhar objected strongly and demanded Mehta withdraw the term, stating, “Withdraw the expression you used just now. This is going live… I strongly object.” Mehta refused, reiterating, “I said that is the constitutional way, not what the Naxalite wants. And I am not sorry about it.” Muralidhar protested again, saying, “He is again repeating it. I am now going to register my strongest protest… To think is not to be a Naxalite.”Justice Joymalya Bagchi intervened, emphasising the constitutional rights available to all individuals and noted that even someone accused of terrorism retains constitutional protections.The Court then considered the legal issue of conscientious objection and consequences for refusing to sing Vande Mataram. Justice Bagchi referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bijoe Emmanuel concerning conscientious objectors and the National Anthem, stating, “We would expect that the law of the land, as declared by this Court in Bijoe Emmanuel, will govern the act of the statute.” The bench further indicated that a conscientious objector refusing to recite one or all stanzas of Vande Mataram should not face criminal prosecution solely for that reason.Muralidhar reiterated that the amended law’s penal nature requires the Court to precisely define conduct subject to prosecution. The bench has directed Mehta to file the Centre’s response within two weeks, after which the Court will consider the matter further….
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s reply on mandate to sing all six Vande Mataram stanzas
