National song choice is State’s call, penal consequences open to scrutiny: SC

…Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s comments during the hearing of a plea challenging the penal protection to Vande Mataram, invited objections in the courtroom on Tuesday (September 22, 2026), as he remarked that “ law-making cannot be as per Naxalites’ idea .” The Supreme Court had taken up a plea filed by renowned Carnatic vocalist and author T.M. Krishna challenging the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 read with the administrative directions…

…comment was strongly objected to by Mr. Muralidhar, saying it was offensive and did not behove the office of a law officer of the government. Mr. Muraldihar said such comments were merely playing to the gallery. “ I have never heard a law officer say this. That was an unnecessary use of the expression [Naxalite]. There should be some decorum, and it is not expected of a law officer. I am registering my strong protest. My Lords shall not encourage this sort of behaviour ,” Mr. Muralidhar said in a face-off with Mr. Mehta. At one point, Mr. Mehta explained that all that he wanted to convey was the law-making process was done by the Parliament. “That is the Constitutional way, and that…

…the Parliament. “That is the Constitutional way, and that is not what Naxalites want,” he said. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who was present in the court room also objected to the Solicitor General’s remarks, saying “ to think is not to be a Naxalite. For an officer of the court, to have a mind is not to be a Naxalite “. Justice Bagchi agreed that as a “human being and a citizen, everyone has a constitutional right to protest”. Published - September 22, 2026 03:08 pm IST…

…process, and whether the 2026 amendment and the government circulars “choke the rights of conscientious objectors.” Interjecting in the discussion, Mr. Mehta said, “let us not bag the National Song in sensationalism”. “ We are not here to create sensations. We are here only to ensure that the law of the land declared under the Bijoe Emmanuel judgment governs the 2026 amendment of the Act ,” Justice Bagchi responded to him. While senior advocate S. Muralidhar criticised the law-making process, saying a definition of the ‘National Song’ required broader debate and consensus, he emphasised that it cannot…

…length of the National Song, it cannot violate individual and collective religious freedoms or subject conscientious objectors, who refuse to sing one or all the stanzas of the ‘Vande Mataram’, to penal consequences. “ What is the National Song is not in dispute… It is for the democratically-elected state to decide and give aspiration as to what the National Song is, whether it should be two stanzas or four stanzas. But nobody can infract Article 25 and 26 [religious freedom] or subject a conscientious objector to penal consequences… It is for the conscientious objector to recite one or all stanzas of the National Song without subjecting himself to criminal prosecution ,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, observed. Justice Bagchi said the 1986 Supreme Court precedent in the Bijoe Emmanuel versus State of Kerala upholding…

…Section 3 to the “National Song”, alongside the National Anthem. The bench also indicated that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Bijoe Emmanuel Vs State of Kerala (1986) would continue to govern the field. “ Nobody who feels an infraction of Article 25, 26 rights would be subjected to penal consequences ,” said the bench, adding that “for a conscientious objector, not to recite one or all the stanzas of the national song is not going to subject himself to criminal prosecution.” Also Read: Karnataka assembly session…