The petition does not ask the Court to make anyone sing. It raises a narrower constitutional question: whether a State government, by executive order, can direct that only two of the six stanzas of the National Song be sung at its own functions, when the Union has prescribed the complete composition as the official version. The petitioner says that is beyond the State’s competence and was decided without due process. The State’s response is yet to come.
Bengaluru: A public interest litigation challenging the Karnataka government’s decision to restrict the singing of the National Song, Vande Mataram, to its first two stanzas at most State government programmes has been mentioned before the Karnataka High Court, which is expected to take up the matter shortly [Sri Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka and Others].
The petition, filed by an advocate, was mentioned before a Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda. It challenges a Government Order of September 8, 2026 and the Cabinet decision of September 3 on which the order is based.
What is under challenge
The impugned Government Order directs that at all State government programmes, except those attended by the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister or Governor, only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram are to be sung. According to the petition, the underlying decision was taken by the State Cabinet on September 3 under an agenda item described as an “Informal Discussion”, and the September 8 order gave effect to it.
The competence argument
The petition’s principal contention is that the State government has no legislative or executive competence to decide what constitutes the National Song. It points to a communication of July 9, 2026 by which the Union Ministry of Home Affairs circulated to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories the orders relating to the National Song and National Anthem for strict compliance, and says those orders prescribe the complete composition of Vande Mataram in six stanzas as the official version, providing that in mass singing the official version alone should be recited.
On that basis, the petitioner argues that Karnataka cannot, through an executive order, prescribe a truncated version of a national symbol when the Union has already prescribed the official version. Relying on Articles 162 and 248 of the Constitution, the petition contends that a State’s executive power extends only to matters on which the State Legislature can legislate, and that since the National Song figures in neither the State List nor the Concurrent List, the subject falls within Parliament’s exclusive domain under Entry 97 of the Union List read with Article 248.
Reliance on the 2026 amendment
The petition also invokes the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026, which is stated to have received presidential assent on August 6. According to the petition, the amendment extended the statutory protection of the 1971 Act to the National Song, making it an offence to intentionally prevent its singing or to cause disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing it.
From this the petitioner argues that Parliament has recognised the integrity of the National Song as a protected legal interest, and that a State cannot adopt an executive policy contrary to that Parliamentary framework. The petition further invokes Articles 256 and 257(1), under which a State’s executive power must be exercised so as to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament and not to impede the exercise of the Union’s executive power.
The process objection
Separately, the petition challenges the manner in which the Cabinet decision was taken. It states that of the items considered by the Cabinet on September 3, the others were based on Cabinet Notes submitted by the concerned administrative departments, whereas the item concerning Vande Mataram was recorded as an “Informal Discussion”, with no Cabinet Note, no sponsoring department and no consultation with the Law Department, despite the issue involving questions about the constitutional distribution of legislative and executive powers. On that footing the petitioner alleges that the decision was taken without proper application of mind and that the Government Order is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
What the petition seeks, and what it does not
The PIL seeks the quashing of the September 8 Government Order and the September 3 Cabinet decision, and a declaration that prescribing the content of the National Song falls within the exclusive competence of the Union and beyond the State government’s executive power. As an interim measure, it seeks a stay of the order and a direction that wherever Vande Mataram is sung at a State government programme, the official Union-prescribed version be sung.
The petition expressly clarifies that it does not seek to compel any individual to sing the National Song. Its contention is confined to the proposition that the State government is not entitled to prescribe a truncated version when the Song is sung at its own functions. It also notes that the September 8 order would govern forthcoming State events, including the Kannada Rajyotsava celebrations on November 1 and Republic Day celebrations in January 2027.
Why it matters
Behind an emotive subject sits a dry and consequential question of federal power: who gets to define a national symbol. The petitioner’s case is that this is a Union subject by default, that the residuary power under Entry 97 and Article 248 places it with Parliament, and that a State cannot use its executive power to override a version the Union has prescribed. The State, when it responds, may contest that characterisation, may point to the absence of any binding statute fixing the number of stanzas, or may defend the order as a matter of the manner of conduct of its own functions rather than a redefinition of the symbol. Those are the competing positions the Court will have to weigh, and none of them has yet been tested.
The process ground is, in a sense, the easier one for a court to engage, because it does not require resolving the larger federal question. If a decision of this kind was taken without a Cabinet Note, a sponsoring department or legal consultation, that alone can be a basis for interference on administrative-law grounds, independent of who is ultimately right on competence. Courts often prefer to decide such matters on the narrower ground where they can.
It is worth being precise about what this litigation is and is not. It is a challenge to a State’s power to prescribe a shortened official version at its own events; it is not, on the petitioner’s own framing, an attempt to make anyone sing, and the Supreme Court has separately held that singing the National Song is not mandatory and carries no penalty. The distinction between compelling an individual and defining a symbol is the line the case is drawn along, and keeping the two apart will matter as much for the reporting as for the judgment. At this stage the Court has only been moved; it has issued no ruling, and the State’s side is yet to be heard.
Case Title: Sri Girish Bharadwaj v. State of Karnataka and Others
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda, High Court of Karnataka
Status: PIL mentioned and expected to be taken up shortly. No interim order passed. The State’s response is awaited and nothing has been decided on the merits.