NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine the legality of penal consequences if a person does not sing the national song due to religious beliefs or conscientious objection, but declined to adjudicate whether ‘Vande Mataram’ should comprise two or six stanzas, saying it was best left to Parliament’s wisdom.The court was hearing a petition by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna objecting to recital of the complete version of the national song on the ground that its last four stanzas invoked Hindu goddesses which may offend the religious beliefs of some communities. The amended law stipulates punishment of up to three years in jail for disrupting or preventing rendition of the song.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the field was occupied by SC’s Aug 1986 Bijoe Emmanuel vs Kerala judgment that no one could be penalised for not singing the national anthem if he showed respect to it by standing in silence.Seeking the Centre’s reply in two weeks, the bench said, “nobody’s Article 25 rights or the right of a conscientious objector should be violated”.It said the Bijoe Emmanuel case ruling had never been challenged and was still the law of the land. The Centre must consider the issue raised in the PIL from that perspective, it said.
Courts can’t dictate what nat’l song should be: SC
The bench added that if a conscientious objector did not sing one or all stanzas of the national song, he would not be subjected to criminal prosecution.Appearing for Krishna, senior advocate S Muralidhar argued that ‘Vande Mataram’ must be confined to two stanzas, as done by Congress Working Committee in 1937 due to strong opposition by Muslims, whose faith does not permit idol worship.The hearing was marked by the bench disagreeing with the suggestion that the recognition of all six stanzas as the national song was not in concord with a “secular” Constitution and a heated exchange between solicitor general Tu-shar Mehta and Muralidhar.Muralidhar’s argument that the law-making process, where Parliament made singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram mandatory, was not inclusive as it did not fully accommodate public opinion had Mehta angrily retorting that law-making could not be made subservient to the “diktat of Naxalite ideas”.Justice Bagchi was sceptical of the argument that singing all six stanzas would undermine the constitutional mandate of secularism, which is a sine qua non for constitutional governance.Justice Bagchi told Muralidhar, “Nothing can be more strong or positive secularism than the US constitution. But the American national anthem uses the word ‘God’. The national song, not national anthem, paying homage to a particular form of God will not perhaps impact secularism. But your point is about whether someone who is a conscientious objector can be subjected to penal consequences. We will examine it.”Muralidhar said all six stanzas were thrust upon people after 80 years and not singing it invited penal consequences. “That is what is most worrying,” he said.The SC said, “Penal consequences we will examine. But the state is best suited to declare what the national song is and articulate national aspirations. If these kinds of issues are debated, then this would be the most unfortunate thing for the nation. Courts cannot dictate what the national song should be.”Mehta said the petition was meant to create sensationalism and persuaded the court not to issue notice while assuring that Centre would file a response.The bench said, “We may not issue notice. But the law of the land as declared by SC (in Bijoe Emanuel case) governs the acts of the state. That declaration has not been questioned. There is no dispute as to what the national song is. It is for the democratically elected state to decide what the national song is, four stanzas or two stanzas. But nobody’s Article 25 rights or the right of a conscientious objector should be violated.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
It is not for the court to second-guess the national sentiment or aspirations associated with ‘Vande Mataram’.”Mehta said it was not for the petitioner to decide whether the national song should be of two or six stanzas. “Those who could not stall the amendment to Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act in Parliament are now bringing the issue to the court,” he added.