Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Against Six-Stanza Vande Mataram Orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs, with the petitions to be listed on November 30 along with TM Krishna’s challenge; the petitioners’ contentions are untested.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 27) issued notice on two petitions challenging the Centre’s orders mandating the singing of all six stanzas of Vande Mataram at formal State events, one by activist BD Borkar and another by a former IAS officer [BD Borkar v. Union of India; Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji v. Union of India].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice. Both petitions, along with the plea of Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna, are listed next on November 30. The Court has not examined the merits, and the contentions below are the petitioners’.
The orders under challenge
The Ministry of Home Affairs issued orders on January 28 and July 9, 2026, mandating the singing of all six stanzas at formal State events. The petitions seek to have them quashed.
What the petitioners contend
Borkar, a Nagpur-based Buddhist and civil rights activist, contends that the orders replace a 79-year-old practice of singing a two-stanza version with a six-stanza version. According to him, the two-stanza version predates the novel Anandamath, and the later stanzas drawn from the novel invoke Hindu goddesses and, as he reads them, are directed against Muslims, which he says harms national fraternity.
The second petitioner, a former IAS officer, contends that mandatory singing of the six-stanza version violates freedom of religion and conscience and undermines secularism and fraternity. He argues that the two-stanza version became the national song through custom and practice, so the Union had no power to replace it, and seeks a declaration that it is the national song. The petitions were filed through Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Choudhary and drawn by G Mohan Gopal, Vaibhav Choudhary, Mayank Singh Rawat and Zaid Ahmed.
The related challenge by TM Krishna
TM Krishna has challenged a 2026 amendment to the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, which makes it punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment to intentionally prevent the singing of the national song or disrupt an assembly singing it. At an earlier hearing, the Court did not issue formal notice at the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that notice could sensationalise the matter. The Court asked the Centre to respond within two weeks and observed orally that a conscientious objector who does not recite the song should not face criminal prosecution. Those were oral observations, and the Court has not decided the questions raised.
Why the order matters
Notice on both petitions brings the challenge to the Home Ministry’s January and July orders before the same Bench that is hearing the challenge to the 2026 amendment, with all three listed together on November 30. The questions that now await the Union’s response include whether an official version of the national song can be prescribed by executive order and how far the freedom of conscience of those who decline to sing all stanzas is protected. The Centre has defended the orders and the amended law in the related hearing, and no view on the merits is expressed here.
Case Title: BD Borkar v. Union of India; Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji v. Union of India (case numbers not available)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Choudhary for the petitioners