BREAKING| Supreme Court docket Rejects Plea In opposition to MHA Round On Vande Mataram, Says No Penalty Prescribed For Not Singing It

The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday refused to entertain a petition difficult the latest round issued by the Ministry of Residence Affairs concerning the singing of all stanzas of the nationwide tune ‘Vande Mataram’ in official features and colleges, observing that the round has not made the singing of the tune obligatory.

Noting that there isn’t any penal consequence prescribed for not singing the tune, the Court docket noticed that the petitioner’s apprehensions concerning social discrimination in opposition to those that refused to sing it have been “imprecise.” The Court docket dismissed the petition, recording that it was “untimely.”

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul 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 your entire stanzas of Vande Mataram and the following protocol issued for its singing in workplaces and colleges.

On the outset, Justice Bagchi, declaring that the MHA round was an “advisory”, mentioned that it was not necessary, since there isn’t any penalty prescribed for not following it.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, for the petitioner, nevertheless submitted that even when there isn’t any penalty prescribed for not following the ‘advisory’, it may result in social compulsions to sing Vande Mataram, and the individuals who don’t observe will probably be “singled out and discriminated in opposition to.” “They are going to be threatened to evolve,” Hegde submitted.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant identified that the round has used the phrase “might” in relation to the singing of the tune in colleges. “The phrase ‘might’ is used. There aren’t any penal or adversarial penalties. No person has requested that you just do it in your academy,” CJI advised the petitioner.

Solicitor Normal of India Tushar Mehta, who was current within the Court docket for an additional matter, then interjected to say, “Can we must be suggested to respect the nationwide tune?”

Hegde highlighted that the folks from all religions, together with atheists, can be finally compelled to sing the tune as a “social demonstration of loyalty.”

The Solicitor Normal then referred to 51A(a) of the Structure. Hegde replied that as per Article 51A(a), a citizen solely has the elemental obligation to respect the Nationwide Flag and the Nationwide Anthem, and there was no reference to Vande Mataram.

Patriotism can’t be compelled, says the petitioner

Hegde then referred to the Supreme Court docket’s order recalling the directive to sing the Nationwide Anthem in film halls. He additionally referred to the Supreme Court docket’s judgment within the Bijoe Emmanuel case, which protected a scholar who refused to sing the Nationwide Anthem resulting from spiritual causes.

“Patriotism can’t be compelled,” Hegde submitted.

“It may possibly’t be compelled even for the Nationwide Anthem?” CJI requested.

“If the Structure has to imply something, it has to guard particular person conscience. Our custom teaches tolerance. If there’s an advisory with out sanctions, your lordships might take it, there is not any manner that that advisory is enforced,” Hegde mentioned.

“Please come to us whenever you’re discriminated on the premise of the advisory,” Justice Bagchi then said.

Hegde mentioned that there was a “menace to evolve.” Disagreeing, Justice Bagchi mentioned, “There is not any menace conform… You have got some imprecise apprehensions of discrimination.”

“It’s a untimely apprehension; if there are any penal penalties, you come to us,” CJI advised Hegde.

“We simply really feel that you’ve got some imprecise apprehensions of discrimination which wouldn’t have any clear nexus with the impugned round” Justice Bagchi noticed.

Hegde then raised one other argument concerning the diminishing of the stature of the Nationwide Anthem. He mentioned that when he lately visited the Nationwide Faculty of Drama, Vande Mataram was sung for 3 minutes. He mentioned {that a} 3-minute Nationwide Track will overwhelm the Nationwide Anthem. He added that as per the round, the Nationwide Track can be sung earlier than the Nationwide Anthem, and mentioned that it’ll diminish the worth of the Nationwide Anthem.

“There are sufficient residents who will really feel the stress to evolve”, Hegde mentioned.

The Chief Justice once more disagreed, saying, “That is solely a protocol. The phrase used is “when it’s performed”. Earlier, we had a nationwide flag protocol, that is solely a protocol, saying if one needs to fly it, what are the issues one should observe.”

Hegde mentioned that the Nationwide Flag has a statutory foundation as per the Prevention of Insults to Nationwide Honour Act.

Hegde claimed it is a matter affecting the civic lifetime of your entire nation. He added that there have been historic causes for not adopting the complete model of the Nationwide Track. “The dearth of a authorized framework for nationwide tune renders this advisory unsustainable,” he mentioned.

“We are going to recognize this argument whether it is made necessary. That half is totally silent, there aren’t any penal penalties, there isn’t any sanction, there isn’t any requirement that it have to be sung,” CJI repeated, indicating the intention to dismiss the petition.

Solicitor Normal then submitted, “An individual who says patriotism isn’t obligatory shouldn’t be entrusted with a writ within the Court docket”

Hegde took critical objection to the SG’s comment and vehemently asserted, “That is performative. The Structure is for all. It doesn’t rely upon the place you stand politically or religiously.”

Case : Mohamemd Sayeed Noori v Union of India | WP(c) 341/2026