A fresh challenge to the Centre’s six-stanza ‘Vande Mataram’ has reached the Supreme Court, with a Buddhist and Ambedkarite activist arguing that the Home Ministry cannot change the content of the National Song by executive order and that compelling citizens to sing stanzas invoking Hindu goddesses violates secularism, fraternity and freedom of conscience.
New Delhi: Bhimrao Duryodhan Borkar, a Scheduled Caste Buddhist, Ambedkarite activist and former National President of the All India Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation (BAMCEF), has filed a writ petition under Article 32 in the Supreme Court challenging the Union Ministry of Home Affairs’ orders of January 28 and July 9, 2026 prescribing a six-stanza version of ‘Vande Mataram’, along with the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 [Bhimrao Duryodhan Borkar v. Union of India and Another].
The petition, registered as Diary No. 61620/2026, has been drafted by Advocates Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Mayank Singh Rawat and Zaid Ahmed and filed through Advocate-on-Record Vaibhav Choudhary. It is yet to be listed, and the Centre has not responded to it.
Two stanzas versus six
The petitioner’s case is that the Centre has effectively replaced the two-stanza ‘Vande Mataram’ sung at national functions since Independence with the six-stanza composition that appears in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s 1881 novel Anandamath. According to the petition, the first two stanzas, which predate the novel, describe the natural beauty of the motherland, while the four added stanzas invoke the goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati.
The petition draws on the history of the song’s adoption. It points to the objections of Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore to singing all six stanzas, the 1937 resolution of the Congress Working Committee recommending only the first two stanzas at national gatherings, and the statement of January 24, 1950 in which Constituent Assembly President Dr. Rajendra Prasad declared that ‘Vande Mataram’, given its historic role in the freedom struggle, would be honoured equally with ‘Jana Gana Mana’. The Constituent Assembly, the petitioner argues, never identified or mandated the six-stanza version, and decades of using the two-stanza version have given it the force of a binding legal custom.
It describes the six-stanza version as a religious invocation and says its imposition would convert the character of India from a “secular republic” to a “theocracy”, deepen communal division and hurt the religious feelings of minority faiths, including the petitioner’s own, Buddhism. The petition also characterises Anandamath as hostile to Muslims and the full song as having been used in the novel as a war cry.
‘No power to change the song by executive order’
A central plank of the challenge is that the Home Ministry has no statutory or constitutional authority to alter the content of the National Song through executive orders, and that the two orders identify no legal source for such a change. The petition notes that the July 9 order also widens the occasions on which the song is to be played or sung, including in schools, and requires that when the National Song and the National Anthem are performed together, the National Song be played first.
Fundamental rights grounds
The petitioner argues that compelling citizens to sing or take part in the six-stanza version violates freedom of conscience and religion under Article 25(1), freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which he says includes the right to remain silent, and the right to life and dignity under Article 21. Relying on Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, he contends that a person who does not sing a national song or anthem cannot for that reason alone be treated as disrespecting it. He also invokes Article 28(3) against compelled participation in religious worship, and Articles 14 and 15, arguing that a National Song carrying religious invocations disadvantages citizens of other faiths.
Reliefs sought
The petition seeks the quashing of the January 28 and July 9 orders, a direction restraining the Centre from mandating the six-stanza version at governmental, ceremonial, educational or other occasions, a declaration that only the two-stanza standalone version be recognised and performed as the National Song, and a declaration that no citizen can be compelled to sing or play it or face penal, civil or administrative consequences for not doing so.
The wider litigation
The petition joins a related challenge by Carnatic musician TM Krishna to the Centre’s circular and the 2026 amendment. While hearing that matter last week, the Supreme Court indicated that it would examine the issue to the extent penal consequences are involved, observing that a person who believes singing the song infringes their rights under Articles 25 or 26 should not be punished, and that it is not for courts to declare what the National Song is.
The dispute has also reached the States. Karnataka’s September 8 order limiting the song to two stanzas at government functions is under challenge in the Karnataka High Court, and the State’s Governor has asked it to reconsider, contending that a State cannot by executive instruction prescribe a version inconsistent with the Union’s protocol. Supporters of the Centre’s approach point to the song’s place in the freedom movement and to the Constituent Assembly’s 1950 declaration that it would be honoured equally with the National Anthem. The petitioner’s claims remain to be tested once the Court hears the matter.
Case Title: Bhimrao Duryodhan Borkar v. Union of India and Another
Case Number: Diary No. 61620/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
For the Petitioner: Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Mayank Singh Rawat and Zaid Ahmed, Advocates; Vaibhav Choudhary, Advocate-on-Record