Two other petitions already challenge the Home Ministry’s orders on the National Song; now a former IAS officer has moved the Supreme Court against the six-stanza Anandamath version, contending that the orders violate secularism and freedom of conscience.
New Delhi: Under Article 32, a former IAS officer and ex-chairman of the Kerala State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission seeks the quashing of two Ministry of Home Affairs orders that prescribe the six-stanza version of the National Song, drawn from Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay’s novel Anandamath, in place of the two-stanza version traditionally sung [Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji v. Union of India].
The petitioner is Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji, and the petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Choudhary. Everything set out below is the petitioner’s contention, and the Court has not ruled on it.
What the petition says
According to the petition, the two-stanza version has long been sung as the National Song, and the MHA orders replace it with a six-stanza version taken from Anandamath. The additional stanzas contain references to Hindu goddesses, it contends, so compelling people to sing or play them infringes secularism, freedom of conscience and religious freedom under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
The petitioner further argues that the Centre has no authority to change the established version of the National Song through executive orders.
Quashing and a restraint
The MHA orders are to be quashed, the petitioner prays, and the Centre restrained from compelling people to sing or play the six-stanza version on the specified occasions.
The orders, and the other challenges
The orders under challenge are dated January 28, 2026 and July 9, 2026, and they prescribe the six-stanza version as the official version of the National Song for specified occasions. Carnatic vocalist T.M. Krishna has petitioned against the same orders, and against the 2026 amendment to Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which makes it an offence to intentionally prevent the singing of the National Anthem or National Song or to cause disturbance to such singing. A Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant heard his petition on September 22, 2026.
Former bureaucrat and activist B.D. Borkar has filed a separate plea in October against the same orders.
The Bench orally indicated at the September 22 hearing that it was not for the Court to decide what the National Song is, and that it would examine whether the right of a conscientious objector, recognised in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, is protected. The Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that secularism cannot be understood so narrowly. These were oral exchanges, not a written order.
Two questions the Court has yet to answer
One more challenge to the MHA orders has been added to a growing set before the Supreme Court. The questions turn on whether the Union can prescribe an official version of the National Song by executive order, and how far citizens who decline, on grounds of conscience, to sing all its stanzas are protected.
In the related hearing, the Union put forward the position that the orders and the amended law are valid. The Court has not decided either question, and no view on the merits is expressed here.
Case Title: Balakrishnan Sathyabhama Mavoji v. Union of India (Article 32 petition)
Bench: Not yet assigned in the available material
Challenged orders: MHA orders dated January 28, 2026 and July 9, 2026
Appearance: Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Choudhary for the Petitioner