Today, On 25th March, The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a plea against the Government of India and Ministry of Home Affairs circular on singing Vande Mataram, noting it is not compulsory and carries no penalties, according to the Court.
The Supreme Court refused to consider a petition challenging the Central government’s recent guidelines on the playing of the national song “Vande Mataram” at government and public events.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi termed the petition premature and noted that the guidelines do not prescribe any penal consequences for non-compliance.
CJI Kant additionally observed that the guidelines are merely a protocol and do not impose any obligation to follow them.
The Bench said,
“We will hear all this when there are penal consequences or (singing is) made mandatory. This notification is advisory. No penal consequences also,”
In court, the petitioner Muhammed Sayeed Noori was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who argued that a penalty exists for disruption.
Hegde said,
“There is always a huge burden for someone who refuses to sing or stand up. In the garb of advisory people can be compelled to sing along,”
Chief Justice Kant questioned whether the petitioner was being compelled to play the national song,
“Show us the notice sent to you compelling you to play the national song. You run a school, we don’t know whether it is recognised or not also.”
Justice Bagchi asked if the January 28 notification carried any penal consequences for non-compliance.
The judge asked,
“Does the January 28 notification lead to penal consequence? Is the person removed from the congregation if they don’t sing the same,”
Bagchi noted that the government guidance uses the word “may,” which suggests it is permissive rather than mandatory.
The judge observed,
“Clause 5 of the Union government direction says “may”. This freedom is as much to sing as much not to sing. That is why it does not fall foul of the Bijoe Emmanuel,”
CJI Kant made a similar point. He added,
“There are no penal consequences and no one is compelling you to do this in your academy,”
Senior counsel Hegde referred to an earlier ruling requiring the national anthem to be played in cinemas.
He said,
“Keep the petitioner aside for moment. I am on Justice Dipak Misra judgment. Many of us don’t watch films much. But after that judgment many of us stopped going to the theatre. Patriotism cannot be compelled,”
Justice Bagchi acknowledged that reasonable people might see this differently. In reply, the senior counsel argued,
“The Constitution has to protect individual conscience.”
Bagchi suggested the petitioner could return to court if they later suffered discrimination.
He said,
“We have to see if a mere advisory [is] a breach of constitutional right. This is just a vague apprehension of discrimination which does not have a reasonable nexus with the impugned notification,”
Hegde continued, arguing that the 3-minute national song has a stronger emotional effect than the 55-second anthem and that combined performances could pressure people to conform.
He said,
“When it is played together.. the national song is played first and thus the anthem becomes an epilogue to the national song. There are enough citizens who will feel the pressure to conform,”
CJI Kant responded that the guidelines merely set out a protocol for performing the national song.
CJI Kant said,
“We have a national flag protocol also. It has been made very liberal,”
Hegde cautioned that a future administration or a single bureaucrat in the Union Home Ministry could issue a different directive.
The court, however, found the challenge premature.
While dismissing the plea as premature, CJI Kant said,
“We will hear all this when there are penal consequences or made mandatory. This notification is advisory. No penal consequences also,”
Earlier in the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the petition.
Mehta said,
“If a person says that patriotism cannot be compelled.. then he does not deserve to be entrusted with writ of this court,”
Hegde called Mehta’s remarks “performative” and stressed that the Constitution protects everyone.
Case Title: Mohamemd Sayeed Noori v Union of India | WP(c) 341/2026