'Vande Mataram Not Mandatory at Official Events': Supreme Court's Major Verdict on National Song

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition filed against a Ministry of Home Affairs circular regarding the singing of the national song, 'Vande Mataram,' at official events and in schools, stating that the directive is not mandatory.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi termed the petition, filed by Mohammed Saeed Noori, as premature and characterized it as being based on vague apprehensions of discrimination. The Court observed that if any punitive action is taken or a notice is issued, the petitioner may then approach the Court.

Representing Noori, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde submitted that while they respect all religions, if people are compelled to sing this song irrespective of their religious beliefs and faith, some individuals may perceive it as coercion.

Justice Bagchi remarked to Hegde, "It simply appears to us that you harbor certain vague apprehensions regarding discrimination, which bear no clear nexus to the circular in question." He further inquired whether the circular stipulated any punitive consequences for not singing the national song, or if any individual had been expelled from an assembly for refusing to sing it.

Hegde responded, "There is a provision for punishment in the event of a disruption... Even in the absence of a formal legal penalty, anyone who refuses to sing the song—or declines to stand while it is being sung—invariably faces immense social pressure."

"Can people be compelled to sing this song under the guise of a mere advisory?" In response to this query, the Chief Justice asked Hegde whether the petitioner had received any notice compelling him or anyone else to sing the national song.

Justice Bagchi observed, "The Central Government's directive uses the phrase 'may be sung.' The liberty to refrain from singing the national song is just as valid as the liberty to sing it."

The Bench informed the petitioner that he could approach the Court should any punitive action be initiated against him or if he were to receive any formal notice. The Bench concluded that, at present, the petition amounts to nothing more than "vague apprehensions of discrimination."