The Governor’s letter frames the two-stanza order as a constitutional question, not merely a matter of protocol. Vande Mataram as a national symbol, he argues, lies outside the State’s legislative competence, and the Union has prescribed an official version and protocol for its rendition; a State cannot, by executive instruction, prescribe a different or truncated version at odds with that protocol. Invoking Articles 162, 256 and 257 and the 2026 amendment extending statutory protection to the National Song, the Governor has advised the Chief Minister to reconsider the order and follow the Centre’s circular. He has advised, not directed; whether the State reconsiders is now for it to decide.
Bengaluru: Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has asked Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar to reconsider the State Government’s decision restricting the recital of the National Song, Vande Mataram, to its first two stanzas at State Government functions, except those attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor, contending that the decision is contrary to the Union Government’s guidelines and in violation of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026.
In a letter dated September 21, the Governor advised that the order of September 8, 2026 be reconsidered in the light of the constitutional position, the Central Government’s orders governing the National Song, and the statutory developments of 2026.
The constitutional grounds
The Governor asked the Chief Minister to examine whether the restriction to two stanzas could be sustained consistently with the 2026 amendment to the national-honour law, the Ministry of Home Affairs’ orders concerning the official version and rendition of the National Song, Articles 162, 256 and 257(1) of the Constitution, the distribution of legislative and executive powers between the Union and the States, and the requirement of maintaining uniformity and dignity in the observance of nationally prescribed protocols concerning national symbols.
He referred to the MHA’s ‘Orders relating to the National Song and the National Anthem of India’ of July 9, which prescribe the official version of Vande Mataram to be sung, and which, he said, form part of the national protocol circulated to the States for compliance; the Centre’s instruction, he noted, is that where the National Song is sung in mass singing, the official version is to be recited, leaving no scope for a State to prescribe a different or truncated version at its functions. He further pointed out that the 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 extends statutory protection to the National Song, covering the intentional prevention of its singing and the intentional disturbance of an assembly engaged in singing it, so that Parliament has expressly brought the National Song within the statutory ambit.
On the State’s executive power
On Article 162, the Governor’s letter states that the executive power of a State is co-extensive with the legislative competence of the State Legislature, so that subject matter such as a national symbol, falling outside the State List, is beyond the State’s legislative competence; the State executive cannot, merely by executive instruction, prescribe something contrary to the national protocol, the regulation of the National Song and its official version being a matter on which the Central Government has the executive power to issue orders. The distribution of executive power under Articles 73 and 162, the letter says, warrants careful consideration before a State adopts a protocol inconsistent with the Union’s.
Citing Articles 256 and 257(1), the Governor added that a State must abide by the laws made by Parliament and existing statutory provisions, and that a State’s executive power should not impede the executive power of the Union. Where the Union has prescribed an official version and protocol for the rendition of the National Song, a State order prescribing a substantially different version, he cautioned, may give rise to an avoidable constitutional question. On those grounds, the Governor advised the State Government to reconsider the order of September 8 and to follow the Central Government’s prevailing circular on the rendition of the National Song at State functions.
The wider picture
The Governor’s letter comes as the same State order is under challenge in the courts. On September 22, the Karnataka Government told the High Court, while defending its circular, that the performance of Vande Mataram is not mandatory, unlike the National Anthem; the High Court, hearing a PIL against the order, has deferred the matter in view of a related challenge pending before the Supreme Court. In that related matter, the Supreme Court, hearing Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna’s challenge to the 2026 amendment, orally indicated that it expects the precedent in Bijoe Emmanuel to be followed and that a person who declines to sing for religious reasons should not face penal consequences.
Why it matters
The Governor’s intervention frames the Vande Mataram row as a question of federal executive competence rather than of sentiment. The core of the argument is the principle in Article 162 that a State’s executive power tracks its legislative competence: if the regulation of a national symbol is not a subject on which the State can legislate, then the State cannot regulate it by executive order either, still less in a manner said to conflict with the Union’s protocol. Articles 256 and 257, on this reasoning, reinforce the point by requiring a State to comply with parliamentary law and not to impede the Union’s executive power. Whether the two-stanza order in fact conflicts with a binding Union protocol, or merely departs from a non-mandatory advisory, is the question at the heart of the dispute, and it is contested.
The State’s position, as articulated before the High Court, is that the singing of Vande Mataram is not mandatory in the way the National Anthem is, which, if correct, would weaken the claim that a State order confining it to two stanzas offends a binding national protocol. That difference, mandatory rule versus advisory guidance, is likely to be decisive: an executive advisory that only recommends a course leaves more room for State variation than a binding legal mandate does. The courts are already seized of the validity of the State order and of the 2026 amendment, and their rulings, rather than the correspondence between the Governor and the Chief Minister, will ultimately settle the legal questions.
It bears emphasis that the Governor has advised, not directed. A Governor’s message of this kind is an exercise of the office’s persuasive and cautionary role, not a legally binding command that the elected State Government must obey; the decision whether to reconsider the order rests with the Council of Ministers. The letter adds a constitutional voice to a debate already before the courts, and flags the risk of an “avoidable constitutional question”, but it does not itself determine the outcome, which will turn on how the judiciary resolves the competing claims about the Union’s protocol, the State’s competence, and the reach of the amended national-honour law.
Development: Letter dated September 21, 2026 from the Governor of Karnataka to the Chief Minister, advising reconsideration of the State Government Order dated September 8, 2026 limiting the recital of Vande Mataram to two stanzas at State functions
Grounds cited: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026; MHA orders on the official version of the National Song; Articles 73, 162, 256 and 257(1) of the Constitution; the Union-State distribution of executive power
Status: Advisory, not binding. The State order is separately under challenge before the Karnataka High Court, and the 2026 amendment before the Supreme Court.