The question the petitioner posed was one of competence: who may regulate a national symbol, the Centre or a State? His challenge is to a Karnataka order confining the singing of Vande Mataram, at State functions, to its first two stanzas; he says a State cannot decide the content of a national song, still less after Parliament extended statutory protection to it. The State answered that the order is guidance, not a mandate, and that only two stanzas have been sung since 1932. The High Court did not resolve the contest today; noting that a related challenge is before the Supreme Court, it put the matter off for three weeks.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has deferred the hearing in a Public Interest Litigation challenging the State government’s decision to limit the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government functions, directing that the plea be listed after three weeks in view of a related matter pending before the Supreme Court [Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka].
A Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda passed the direction after the State pointed out that a similar matter was pending before the apex court.
The challenge
The PIL, filed by advocate Girish Bharadwaj, challenges a State government order of September 8, 2026 providing that only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram be sung at State government programmes, with an exception permitting all six stanzas at programmes attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor. The petitioner contends that, Parliament having enacted the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 to include Vande Mataram as a national song and give it a status similar to the national anthem, the State order undermines Parliament’s intent to protect the full version of the song. The petition also alleges that the Cabinet issued the order after an informal discussion, without a Cabinet note from the concerned department or legal advice.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Angad Kamath argued that the State could not decide the content of a national song, particularly after Parliament amended the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 to extend statutory protection to Vande Mataram. He framed the issue as one of competence:
“Who has the prerogative to regulate a national symbol, the national song, the Centre or the State?”
Relying on Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution, he submitted that States are required to comply with laws made by Parliament and cannot obstruct the exercise of the Union’s executive power, and he questioned the manner in which the decision was taken, without a Cabinet note or legal advice.
The State’s defence
The State defended the order. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs communication on Vande Mataram and submitted that it was meant only as guidance and did not make singing the song mandatory. He submitted that there was no mandate to sing the national song, and that only the first two stanzas had been sung from 1932 to the present. He further argued that the amended law does not define “national song”, and that the Constitution does not expressly refer to Vande Mataram in the manner it refers to the national anthem.
The Supreme Court proceedings
The deferral was prompted by the pendency of a related challenge before the Supreme Court. The apex court is hearing a petition by Carnatic musician T.M. Krishna challenging the Centre’s directions on the six-stanza version of Vande Mataram and the 2026 amendment to the national honour law, which makes intentionally preventing the singing of Vande Mataram, or disrupting an assembly engaged in singing it, punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. On the same day, the Supreme Court indicated that it would examine the penal consequences of the amended law, and referred to its 1986 decision in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, which protected students who respectfully stood during the national anthem but did not sing it on grounds of conscience and religion.
The High Court was informed that the Supreme Court matter was expected to be taken up further in about two weeks, and accordingly directed that the Karnataka PIL be listed after three weeks.
Why it matters
The deferral is a case-management step rather than a decision on the merits, and its logic is sound: where the Supreme Court is seized of a related question, a High Court will ordinarily await the apex court’s view rather than risk a conflicting ruling, particularly on a matter of this sensitivity. The Karnataka PIL and the Supreme Court petition approach the subject from different directions, the High Court matter attacks a State order that truncates the song to two stanzas, while the Supreme Court matter challenges the Centre’s insistence on six stanzas and the penal consequences of the amended law, but both turn on the legal status of Vande Mataram and the limits of executive power over it, which is why the High Court considered it prudent to wait.
The constitutional question the petitioner raises is a genuine one about the distribution of power. Articles 256 and 257 require a State to exercise its executive power in compliance with laws made by Parliament and so as not to impede the Union’s executive power; the petitioner’s argument is that, once Parliament has legislated to protect Vande Mataram, a State cannot by executive order prescribe a truncated version at its functions. The State’s answer, that the relevant communications are guidance rather than mandate, that only two stanzas have conventionally been sung, and that the law does not even define “national song”, meets that on its own terms, contesting both the existence of a binding parliamentary mandate and the reach of the State order. Which view prevails is for adjudication, and, given the deferral, is likely to be informed by whatever the Supreme Court says on the cognate questions.
Nothing has been decided. The High Court has neither upheld nor set aside the State order; it has postponed the hearing to await developments before the Supreme Court, and the competing contentions, on legislative competence, on the status of the MHA communications, and on the propriety of the manner in which the order was passed, remain to be considered when the matter is next listed.
Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda, High Court of Karnataka
Appearing: Advocate Angad Kamath for the petitioner; Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty for the State
Status: Hearing deferred; PIL to be listed after three weeks in view of the related matter pending before the Supreme Court. Nothing decided on the merits.