Supreme Court Issues Notice On Pleas Against Six-Stanza Vande Mataram Orders of the Home Ministry, and lists them on November 30 with TM Krishna’s plea.
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 […]
Ambedkarite activist BD Borkar has moved the Supreme Court against the Home Ministry’s January 28 and July 9, 2026 orders prescribing the six-stanza Vande Mataram and the 2026 amendment to the national-honour law, arguing that the additional stanzas invoke Hindu deities and that the MHA has no power to change the National Song by executive order.
Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has written to Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar advising reconsideration of the State’s September 8 order limiting the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government functions. The Governor contends the order is contrary to the Union’s protocol on the National Song and the 2026 amendment to the national-honour law, and that, under Articles 162, 256 and 257, a State cannot by executive instruction prescribe a version inconsistent with the Union’s on a subject outside its legislative competence.
The Karnataka High Court has deferred, by three weeks, a PIL challenging the State government’s September 8 order limiting the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government functions, after the State pointed out that a related matter, TM Krishna’s challenge to the Centre’s Vande Mataram circular and the 2026 amendment, is pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that a State cannot decide the content of a national song; the State defended the order as guidance, not a mandate.
A sharp exchange broke out in the Supreme Court during the hearing of TM Krishna’s Vande Mataram challenge, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta remarked that law-making cannot be dictated by Naxalites. Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar strongly objected and asked that the remark be withdrawn; the Solicitor General said he was not sorry for it and later clarified it was not meant personally. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the Court had not taken note of the remark.
Hearing Carnatic musician TM Krishna’s challenge to the Centre’s circular on the singing of Vande Mataram and the extension of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act to it, the Supreme Court indicated it would examine the matter to the extent penal consequences are involved, observing that a person who believes that singing it infringes their rights under Articles 25 or 26 cannot be subjected to punishment, and that it is not for courts to declare what the National Song is. A remark by the Solicitor General drew strong objection from the petitioner’s counsel.
A PIL before the Karnataka High Court challenges the State’s September 8 order restricting Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at most government programmes, arguing that prescribing the content of a national symbol falls within the Union’s exclusive competence and that the Cabinet decision was taken without a note, a sponsoring department or legal consultation. The petition does not seek to compel anyone to sing. The Court is expected to take it up shortly.
The Madras High Court sought responses from the Union and Tamil Nadu governments on a plea challenging the treatment of Tamil Thai Vaazhthu during official functions. The petition questions a Union circular allegedly resulting in the State Song being rendered after Vande Mataram and the National Anthem.