Assailing the MHA round concerning singing of nationwide song-Vande Mataram in colleges, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde as we speak pressured earlier than the Supreme Court docket the significance of defending particular person conscience and contended that “patriotism can’t be compelled”.
On this regard, CJI Surya Kant questioned the senior counsel whether or not the identical argument applies within the context of the Nationwide Anthem as nicely. “Patriotism per se can’t be compelled. If the Structure has to imply something, so far as a person is anxious, it has to guard particular person conscience. Our custom teaches tolerance” replied Hegde.
A bench of CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi was listening to a writ petition filed by Muhammed Sayeed Noori difficult the round issued by the MHA on January 28 concerning the singing of whole stanzas of Vande Mataram and the following protocol issued for its singing in places of work and colleges.
After listening to the submissions, the bench rejected the petition as untimely, observing that the round was merely an advisory and didn’t make the singing of the nationwide track obligatory.
Throughout the listening to, Hegde argued that the round offered a risk to evolve. “We’ve got respect for each faith on this nation. If underneath a garb of imposing an advisory, folks could be compelled to sing alongside, these of us residents, irrespective of faith, the atheists, who then feels compelled to take part in ‘social demonstration of loyalty’, which matches in opposition to one’s conscience…” he mentioned.
Solicitor Normal Tushar Mehta, who was current within the Court docket however not showing within the case, referred to Article 51A of the Structure and commented, “can we must be suggested to respect the nationwide track?”. This led Hegde to reply, “There is a distinction between nationwide anthem and nationwide track! It (Article 51A) doesn’t communicate of nationwide track.”
When the bench noticed that there is no such thing as a particular route to the petitioner to sing the track in his establishment, Hegde remarked, “Petitioner could also be saved apart for a second. There are a lot of who’ve our causes. Patriotism can’t be compelled.”
At this level, the CJI posed, “It could possibly’t be compelled even for nationwide anthem?”
Hegde replied to the question by saying, “Patriotism per se can’t be compelled. If Structure has to imply something…it has to guard particular person conscience. Our custom teaches tolerance. If there’s what is named an advisory with out sanctions, your lordships might take it, there are extra ways in which that advisory is enforced”.
Hegde submitted that the Nationwide Anthem has a statutory safety as per the Prevention of Insults to the Nationwide Honour Act, whereas the Nationwide Track has no such authorized framework. The CJI mentioned that this argument may have been appreciated if there was a compulsion to sing Vande Mataram. the CJI identified that the advisory doesn’t prescribe any penalty for not singing it.
Justice Bagchi additionally noticed that the petitioner’s apprehensions about discrimination have been “obscure”. In the end, the petition was dismissed as “untimely.”
Briefly put, the petitioner challenged MHA’s round dated 28.01.2026, which prescribed the way through which Vande Mataram is to be performed/sung in public features and academic establishments.
The petitioner claimed that the impugned instructions within the round created a framework which made participation in singing of the nationwide track a part of college exercise. In follow, it was apprehended that non-participation may end in stress, disciplinary motion and/or social stigma in opposition to college students, lecturers and academic establishments.
“The impact of the impugned instructions is subsequently to put residents, notably these belonging to minority religions or monotheistic faiths within the untenable place of both taking part in expressions opposite to their conscience/perception/faith or risking being perceived as displaying disrespect towards a nationwide image,” the plea said.
The petitioner additional highlighted that Article 51A(a) of the Structure (prescribing basic duties) requires respect for the Structure, the Nationwide Flag and the Nationwide Anthem. It doesn’t point out the nationwide track.
The petitioner additionally relied on the choice in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the place the Supreme Court docket held that three faculty college students, who respectfully stood through the nationwide anthem however declined to sing it on grounds of non secular religion and conscience (as they have been Jehovah’s witnesses) couldn’t be compelled to take part within the singing.
A number of the grounds raised have been as follows:
– The round violated the elemental proper to freedom of conscience and the appropriate to freely profess and follow faith underneath Article 25, because the official model of the track contained therein employed devotional language and invocations related to specific spiritual imagery. The petitioner contended that these created problem specifically for members of monotheistic faiths, the place reverence towards any entity apart from the Divine is impermissible.
– The round paved means for compelled expression, thereby violating freedom of speech and expression underneath Article 19(1)(a). The instructions inspired institutionalized recitation of a specific composition via organized mass singing, which expression might not mirror their spiritual beliefs.
– The round was opposite to the choice in Bijoe Emmanuel case. If the Structure protects the appropriate to not sing the Nationwide Anthem, it essentially follows that residents can’t be compelled to take part within the recitation of nationwide track, which has no comparable statutory framework or authorized obligation hooked up to it.
– The round undermined the dedication to Secularism and didn’t acknowledge the particular place of academic establishments, the place State has heightened obligation to respect freedom of conscience and mental autonomy.
Case Particulars: MUHAMMED SAYEED NOORI Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 341/2026
